Democracy is at Risk, but Stacey Abrams Has a Plan

It should concern is deeply that democracy is at risk with over 100 bills aimed at restricting voting getting filed and making their way through their state legislatures (see CNN report). As we know, the right to vote impacts lawmakers, lawmaking, and everything pertinent to a democracy. 

The formidable voting rights advocate, Stacey Abrams, has a plan and I hope it works.  Thanks to Dr. Bettina Love for sharing.

-Angela Valenzuela 

#votingrights #democracy #DemocracyVision #votingrightsforall #VotingRights #voting

Stacey Abrams Has a Plan to Dismantle the Filibuster and Protect Voting Rights

And she thinks it can get support from reluctant centrist Democrats.

by Ari Berman

Stacey Abrams speaks at campaign event for Rev. Raphael Warnock in Atlanta on November 3.Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Fight disinformation. Get the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As Republicans in the Georgia state legislature passed a series of voting restrictions over the past 10 days, Stacey Abrams, the state’s leading voting rights activist, saw an ever more pressing need to reform the filibuster in the US Senate. And she has a plan for how to do it.

The Georgia legislation and the Senate rules might seem unrelated, but to Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2018 and founder of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, they’re directly connected. “Republicans are rolling back the clock on voting rights,” she says. “And the only way to head that off is to invoke the elections clause of the Constitution, which allows the Congress—and the Congress alone—to set the time, place and manner of elections at a federal level.”

The problem is that Republicans will surely use the filibuster to set an impossible 60-vote threshold for any such effort—and that two centrist Democratic senators, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, have said they oppose abolishing the filibuster. That’s why Abrams proposes tweaking it to allow major voting rights legislation to pass, and she thinks her plan can get reluctant Democrats on board. 

In the same way that Democrats can pass budget bills and confirm judges and Cabinet members with a simple majority, legislation protecting voting rights should also be exempt from the 60-vote requirement, Abrams says.  

“The judicial appointment exception, the Cabinet appointment exception, the budget reconciliation exception, are all grounded in this idea that these are constitutionally prescribed responsibilities that should not be thwarted by minority imposition,” she says. “And we should add to it the right to protect democracy. It is a foundational principle in our country. And it is an explicit role and responsibility accorded only to Congress in the elections clause in the Constitution.”

PODCAST

Listen to reporter Ari Berman interview Stacey Abrams, on this episode of the Mother Jones Podcast:

 

I spoke to Abrams on Monday, just hours before the Georgia Senate repealed no-excuse absentee voting, part of a series of bills passed in recent days to restrict voting rights that Abrams called “Jim Crow in a suit and tie.”

“This isn’t about retribution or revenge,” Abrams says. “This is about protection of the fundamentals of our nation.”

But neither bill will pass the Senate if Democrats don’t eliminate the filibuster, which Abrams calls “a racist procedural rule that is grounded in this notion that the minority must be protected unless we disagree with what the minority needs.”

Abrams testified before the House in late February in favor of HR 1, the most ambitious democracy reform billsince the Voting Rights Act, which would boost voting access through policies like automatic and Election Day registration, early voting, and expanded voting by mail. “It’s the reform we need that will provide protection, provide a foundational level of access, regardless of your geography,” she says. She also urged passage of another House proposal, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would require states with a history of discrimination to once again get federal approval for any changes to voting laws and procedures, after the Supreme Court struck down this requirement from the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013. The measure is needed, she says, “to make certain we don’t watch [voting rights] be butchered or eviscerated.”

I asked Abrams what she would say to Democrats like Manchin and Sinema to persuade them to go along with a “democracy exception” to the filibuster.

“This isn’t about retribution or revenge,” Abrams says. “This is about protection of the fundamentals of our nation, that if we do not protect the participation of voters in our election system, if we do not permit states to do what they must to protect their voters, then we will find ourselves losing our democratic values, losing our democracy. And so I would say to Democrats who are hesitant that short of completely revising the filibuster, we have to make certain that a minority of people cannot be in power in the Senate, and therefore deny the basic principles of citizenship to millions of Americans.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has floated a similar idea, and an increasing number of Democratic senators are now expressing openness to eliminating the filibuster, especially for bills like HR 1. 

“I would get rid of the filibuster,” Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, told me on March 3, when the House passed HR 1. “I have favored filibuster reform for a long time and now especially for this critical election bill.”

Manchin said on Sunday he’s open to changes to the filibuster, such as forcing Republicans to continuously occupy the Senate floor to block bills. And if Republicans keep passing restrictions on the right to vote, a proposal like Abrams’ could start to find a broader consensus.

The Pivot of U.S. Politics: Racial Justice and Democracy by Calvin Cheung-Miaw

There are so many ways to think of the meaning of the past election. One of these is to consider the youth vote among young people, ages 18-29—in short, the "younger millennial" vote—if you will. To wit, this resulted in high voter turnout, particularly in 11 key battleground states. For example, read this pertinent piece titled, "Surge in youth voter turnout may have helped propel Biden to victory."

Good, but what does this mean? Calvin Cheung-Miaw frames this—and I think correctly—in light of all the social movements we've been witnessing. By this, I mean the Ethnic Studies, Black Lives Matters, Women's, and LGBTQ Movements that, as a whole show that young adults not only reject authoritarian, white supremacy and with that, a monocultural vision of the world, while opting instead for racial justice and with that, a multiracial vision of democracy.

I shared all of this with my students this week, referring to how these map on to the University of Texas students' "8 Demands" in the wake of the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor killings.

Great read, particularly for the college classroom as our students are the constituency that helped us to move forward with this progressive vision for the future that they must continue to own as theirs given the polarization and unfortunate fragility of our current democracy.

Enjoy!

-Angela Valenzuela

#2020Election #BlackLivesMatter

The Pivot of U.S. Politics: Racial Justice and Democracy

By Calvin Cheung-Miaw | Nov. 20, 2020 | OrgUp

The contest between multiracial democracy and white authoritarianism was at the center of the 2020 election, and it will be a defining feature of U.S. politics for at least a generation, shaping the political terrain upon which all other struggles take place and necessitating an anti-right front.

The United States will be a multiracial democracy – a democracy in which people of color have full democratic rights — or it won’t be a democracy at all. This is the key lesson of the Trump era, and the necessary starting point for left strategy. It means that even with Trump out of office, racial justice will be the pivot around which U.S. politics turns. That includes class politics, and the question of whether or not a specifically working-class movement takes shape that is powerful and durable enough to grow in the decade ahead.

STARKLY DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES

The Republicans have made it crystal clear that the alternative to multiracial democracy is not an imperfect democracy, one in which racist flaws can be gradually eroded, but white authoritarian rule. Indeed, this polarization has already remade U.S. politics in the past twelve years, by cohering social forces on the left and the right, generating entirely separate media and information bubbles, reframing how social groups understand their own interests, and pushing political leaders in the GOP to adopt positions they would have deemed beyond the pale just a few years ago.

The left faces a crucial and challenging set of tasks: expanding the broad anti-right front, keeping it together and focused on the danger of the right, while also finding a way to integrate economic struggles as well as issues of climate, gender, and peace more deeply into the politics of the forces committed to democracy. This will require a workers’ movement fully immersed in the struggle for racial justice, a task made more difficult but all the more urgent by the significant numbers of white workers won over by Trumpism. If we can make significant progress on this, if multi-racial working-class forces become key drivers of the broader democratic struggle, we have the best shot at remaking U.S. politics in a way that prioritizes the needs of working-class communities and communities of color.

DYNAMICS DRIVING POLITICAL POLARIZATION

The U.S. was born as a White Republic founded on settler colonialism and slavery. The White Republic survived the Civil War and Blacks did not secure government enforcement of the right to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The very next year, James Meredith was shot while marching across the South for the right to vote without fear. Black voting rights have been under assault in the decades since, accelerating even further since the 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down a crucial portion of the Voting Rights Act. Our historic task is to defeat the far right’s attempt to create a new form of white authoritarianism and install a genuine multiracial democracy for the first time.

Struggles over racism and racial equality have often formed the pivot upon which U.S. politics turns. The present intensity of polarization, however, is first and foremost a result of the political strategies pursued by the Republican party and the rise of neoliberalism in the post-civil-rights era. Over the course of decades, Republican party leadership and right-wing grassroots activists have articulated the upward redistribution of wealth with a variety of other social issues – abortion, gun rights, law and order politics, opposition to welfare, busing, and affirmative action – to produce a political bloc with a social base that allowed it to compete in and win elections.

That social base was overwhelmingly dominated by a cross-class coalition of white voters. The political rhetoric that Republican leaders like Reagan deployed to cement its social base typically used dog-whistle racism, especially anti-Black racism. The party’s success on this front tended to push the Democratic party on the defensive, in some cases – as in the attack on welfare – moving it to accommodate rather than confront racism.

Some sections of the GOP, particularly the California Republican party, sought to stoke anti-immigrant (really anti-Latinx and anti-Mexican) sentiment. Through the early 2000s, however, such an approach was moderated by those who believed conservatism ought to appeal to Latinx and Asian American voters, and the party did earn substantial voters from those communities at the national level.

The election of Obama radically shifted the balance between the more racist and more multiculturalist wings of the Republican party. Obama, for all his shortcomings, symbolized the growing weight of voters of color in national elections and the progressive possibilities that power portended. The Republican party’s electoral strategy of pulling in a supermajority of white voters and a much smaller segment of voters of color seemed to be reaching the end of its shelf life.

We can understand the present-day Republican party in terms of the range of responses to this dilemma. Trump and those who are ideologically aligned with him have adopted the approach of repudiating wholesale the place of people of color within the U.S. polity, These figures tap into the racism that fueled birtherism and stoke it with chants of “Send them back,” directed against the women of color that form the Squad.

Many traditional leaders and strategists within the Republican party disdain the open racism of this approach. Their difference with Trumpism is, however, merely tactical and for the moment they have proven willing to accommodate Trumpism’s worst impulses, mounting only tepid and sporadic objections to Trump’s most embarrassing statements.

They are committed to gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, reducing opportunities for early voting, shutting down polling stations in working-class communities of color, restricting access to the vote through voter ID laws, rolling back the Voting Rights Act, challenging the legitimacy of the actual votes of voters of color and other tactics of suppression that are aimed squarely at voters of color. They supplement this core strategy with appeals to patriarchy and homophobia, promises of entrepreneurial success, and fear-mongering about socialism. They believe this package, combined with the anti-democratic nature of the Senate and Electoral College, will allow the GOP to remain competitive in elections, requiring only relatively minor gains among voters of color.

And they have good reason to be confident. In 2020, voters of color surged as a portion of the national electorate – growing from 29% to 35% of voters. This was enough to tip the balance to Biden in the presidential contest. But the Republicans gained seats in the House, increased their hold over state legislatures, will at worst suffer a 50-50 split in the Senate, and can look forward to control of the Supreme Court and decades of a federal judiciary packed with right-wing ideologues. All this from a white electorate that declined relative to the total electorate, and a couple percentage points of growth among voters of color.

A layer of the Republican party leadership genuinely believes that bourgeois democracy in a multiracial society is compatible with their conservative economic program. These individuals, grouped most prominently in the Lincoln Project, have mostly split openly with the Trumpists. But it is a thin layer, and one that is thoroughly isolated within the Republican party.

RACIAL JUSTICE AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

Because the predominant GOP strategy – uniting both Trumpists and the tepid old guard conservatives of the party – is one of preserving its power through white minority rule, the struggle for racial justice is at the heart of the struggle for democracy. While those of us who were taught in the U.S. school system imbibed the idea that U.S. democracy was the foundation of aspirations for racial equality, we should reverse this relationship. Historically and today, it is struggles for racial equality that have eroded the White Republic and produced what democracy we have in the U.S.

There are specific demands where the struggles for racial justice and democratic rights are intertwined, such as campaigns against voter suppression. But those campaigns are inseparable from the broader struggles against racism – against police brutality, against the murders of transwomen of color, against the criminalization of immigrants, for decent public schools, etc. – that demand a recognition of the dignity of people of color within the U.S. polity.

The broader social transformation required to make gains in these struggles is what will also propel the struggle for democratic rights for people of color. As we’ve seen in the finger-pointing by centrist Democrats after the 2020 election, such racial justice struggles divide, to some extent, the anti-Trump front. Politics is an art, and it will require some finesse to keep an anti-right front together under a Biden administration, but backing away from racial justice struggles will only weaken our long-term capacity to fight the forces pushing white minority rule.

Campaigns to expand democratic rights and thus the electorate, on the other hand, have tended to benefit the progressive wing of the Democratic party. This is why groups like New Florida Majority campaigned for voting rights for all, regardless of prior criminal records, and why New Virginia Majority made a concerted effort to strengthen voting rights in its state. New Virginia Majority succeeded in transforming Virginia from one of the hardest states for people to vote in, to one of the easiest states, and it’s no coincidence that this transformation overlapped with its shift from red to blue.

The aftermath of the 2020 election makes clear the intertwining of antiracist and democratic struggles. Even after the 2016 election, Trump mounted a campaign to convince the people of the U.S. that he had won the popular vote, claiming that 3 million immigrants voted unlawfully. In 2020, as Trump pushes his theory of ‘illegal votes’ and his predominantly white supporters flood polling centers in Philadelphia or Arizona, who do we think his base pictures as illegal voters?

THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT IN THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY

Today, most of the left takes racial justice struggles seriously. We feel have a responsibility as leftists to dismantle all forms of oppression, and we aspire to remove racism as a form of division among workers, in order to produce a united working-class political subject.

Both of these motivations are important. But they miss the centrality of racial justice struggles to the struggle over democracy, and thus the overall terrain of politics in the U.S. Indeed, for those of us committed to building the power of the working class, an expanded democracy and the demolition of obstacles to political participation offers the best chance for the class to become the driving force within the anti-right front, and in the remaking of U.S. politics more generally.

Developing the multiracial working class into a key driver of the democratic struggle will position us to articulate – and win – a vision of democracy that includes rights to housing, education, health care, safe communities, and unionization. It should be a central component of left strategy, alongside the rebuilding of class power at the point of production. It is no accident that throughout U.S. history – from Reconstruction to the way the 1950s-60s Civil Rights Movement birthed the Poor People’s Campaign, spurred the development of second wave feminism and inspired the modern LGBTQ movement – so much of how we imagine a society where all working and oppressed people thrive was incubated in the creative furnace of the Black Freedom Movement.

Right-wing populism’s power is in its ability to convince individuals that their material suffering can be alleviated by attacking others who also suffer from capitalism. The Republican party’s open embrace of white supremacy, and its hold on a cross-class bloc of white voters, grew as class politics in the U.S. weakened as a force in shaping people’s lives and their understanding of politics.

One segment of the Democratic Party, ensconced in the Democratic Leadership Council, saw the future of the party in terms of growth among white suburban professionals who were wary of redistributionist politics. Clinton, who emerged from the DLC, embraced the politics of multicultural diversity within his cabinet while passing NAFTA (and welfare reform). The passage of NAFTA proved disastrous for the Democratic party’s base among white workers in manufacturing-based economies. While the trend since 2008 among Democratic presidential candidates has mainly been against the neoliberal orthodoxy promoted by the DLC, even candidates like Biden who on paper had a relatively progressive economic platform tended to downplay class politics as a campaign theme.

If struggles for racial justice and democracy are going to be successful, our side will have to weaken the cross-class front of white voters that forms most of the base of the Republican party, who are being pulled into support of white authoritarian rule. This is impossible without a massive struggle to improve the lives of workers and people of color, a class struggle in the broadest sense.

Right wing populism’s weakness is that it cannot deliver on its promise of improving people’s material conditions. One short video, by NowThis News, followed a set of Obama to Trump voters in Pennsylvania as they followed Trump’s actions during the first two years of his presidency.

While some voters were clearly committed to Trumpism at a deep ideological level, one voter reacted in dismay to Trump’s attack on Obamacare. This voter, a teacher in Luzerne County named Donna, had two parents with Huntington’s disease and lived in fear her entire adult life that an insurance company would find out and kick her off healthcare. Donna also understood how Trump’s cuts to the Shine program, which provides after school programs to under-resourced school districts, would affect her close friend’s own children. After all this, a friend asks her whether she would have voted for Trump knowing everything he would do. She hesitates for a moment, then answers, “yes.”

Donna belongs in the class struggle. It’s our job to organize her.

TOWARDS LIBERATION

A core set of social justice organizations, mostly rooted in communities of color and in unions with large numbers of members of color, have been leading the fight for multiracial democracy. This set of social forces has proven to be the most dynamic left political force in the fight against Trump. They were instrumental in the electoral defeat of Trump and in the tremendous boost in turnout of voters of color and young people in the election.

The uprising in defense of Black Lives thrust the issue of anti-Black racism into the center of national politics, and as it did so it cast a sharp spotlight on all kinds of structural inequities in U.S. society. The Frontline – initiated by the Working Families Party and the Movement for Black Lives Electoral Justice Project and drawing in partners like United We Dream Action and About Face – brought the energy of the uprising into the 2020 election; now it gearing up to press for deep change starting from day one of a new administration.

Our success as a left in moving a broader politics of liberation, encompassing a fundamental social transformation and the redistribution of power and resources, depends on how deeply we engage with these forces and the organizations that represent them, which are predominantly Black-led.

Take, for instance, the question of internationalism. It is currently an open question whether the Biden administration will slide into the mentality of a New Cold War with China, promoted by Trump to virulent effect in order to deflect from his failure to confront the coronavirus, but which has gained adherents in the upper echelons of both political parties. Those of us who believe that our ability to confront climate change depends upon some measure of cooperation with China can and should form our own organizations and campaigns. But we will only be able to move our politics if we are able to win over the racial justice and democratic forces that have been central to the anti-Trump fight. Based on a recent campaign along these lines, however, this is a political goal that is entirely realizable.

CONCLUSION

This article is an attempt at outlining a starting point for political strategy for the next period of struggle. Criticism and discussion is required to overcome its shortcomings, foremost among them the lack of an in-depth exploration of the relationship between the struggle for multiracial democracy and struggles against gender oppression, for queer liberation, disability rights, indigenous rights and decolonization, and for climate justice. Trumpism has intensified all these struggles as a result of its relentless assault on all those marginalized within U.S. society, and they will all play vital roles in reshaping the political terrain, so that another world is possible.

This article grew out of political discussions among Max Elbaum, Whitney Maxey, Melanie Barron, and the author. Thanks also to the Organizing Upgrade editorial collective and Bob Wing for feedback on an earlier draft.

Platforms of Power: Shaping the U.S. Latino Narrative | 2020 In Focus: Election, Census, and the Latino Community

THIS LOOKS BOTH TIMELY AND EXCITING. GO TO LINK TO REGISTER.

-Angela

Join the Friends of the American Latino Museum for a weekend of conversations about diverse storytelling, creating inclusivity, and the watershed year 2020 promises to be. And each night, we will bring our friends together for a celebration of the work done and the work yet to come.

---

Where: Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center
600 River St.  • Austin, TX

When: March 13 – 14, 2020 

---

With the support and partnership of NBC Universal Telemundo and the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative, we are excited to bring this space to SXSW.

Be sure to register below and check back here regularly for updates on our schedule and ways to get involved. We can’t wait to see you in Austin!

We are grateful to be joined in Austin with our friends, supporters, and leaders from across the entertainment and advocacy space. 

GET FREE GENERAL ADMISSIONS TICKETS HERE.

A conversation featuring Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20) and Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Ivette Rodriguez of LA Collab; Ruben Garcia of Creative Artists Agency; Sonja Diaz of UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative; moderated by Julio Ricardo Varela of Futuro Media.

The American Latino experience has been largely left out of conversations in history, media, politics, and entertainment. This exclusion leads to ignorance around the contributions of Latinos across industries, giving rise to stereotypes and misunderstandings. As the Latino community continues to grow, xenophobia and misinformed rhetoric regarding Latinos have taken a serious toll on our community and the nation—in some instances, even putting lives in danger.

But over the last decade or more, there has been a concerted effort on all fronts to push back and regain control of the narrative by Latinos and Latinas in media, politics, and business. With more Latinos than ever in government, behind the camera, and giving voice to our community’s stories, we have an opportunity to seize and shape the conversation around the diversity of our history and our present day America. How can today’s various platforms find synergy to create inclusivity for Latinos while tackling ignorance and hate? And how can we use our platforms of power to create a more positive narrative around our community?

GET FREE GENERAL ADMISSIONS TICKETS HERE.

A powerful conversation featuring Congressman Will Hurd (TX-23); Dr. Matt Barreto, UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative; and Julie Rodriguez, DNC Platform Committee; moderated by Vanessa Hauc, Noticias Telemundo.

For the first time in history, Latinos are the largest minority group of potential voters in the United States. In the 2020 election, a record 32 million Latino Americans will be eligible to vote. But far from being a uniform voting bloc, the Latino community in the US is incredibly diverse demographically, culturally, and ideologically. Engaging and mobilizing Latino voters has been a priority for campaigns and interest groups as Latinos make up an increasingly larger segment of the US population. But authenticity is key—are activists and candidates doing a better job of speaking to the concerns and interests of Latinos? What gaps still remain?

In the wake of Super Tuesday, join us for a conversation about the watershed year 2020 promises to be, and the role of the Latino community.

Like Dr. Alvaro Huerta, I am personally very concerned about the 2020 Presidential election and how the importance of the African American and Latina/o vote needs to be taken seriously into account.  Our communities should not get treated as an afterthought but rather dealt with centrally.  From that standpoint, I do agree with Dr. Huerta that the most valid contenders are Warren, Sanders, and Biden.  These, in comparison to the rest, would excite these combined electorates. 

My hope is, of course, that whoever the candidate ultimately is, that we all rally behind that candidate in order to get Trump out of office.

-Angela Valenzuela

Another Five Lessons for Democrats to Defeat Trump in 2020 (OPINION)

By: Alvaro Huerta FEB 13, 2020

As part of my last two essays on how Democrats can beat President Trump (here and here) I’ve added another five lessons. As a registered Independent (as noted in my last essay), I’ve consistently been critical (to the present) of Democrats and Republicans in the areas of race, class, place, immigration, etc. My most recent book on defending Latina/o immigrants shares more reasons why. Also, since I’m offering these perils of wisdom to the Democrats on a pro bono basis, don’t blow it, Democrats!

African American and Latina/o Support Is Key

Without the majority support and enthusiasm of African American and Latina/o voters, the ultimate Democratic candidate to take on Trump will lose. Let’s not get confused or bothered by the recent Iowa caucus fiasco or the New Hampshire primary. These primarily white states, where Iowa is 91% white and New Hampshire is 93% white, will not determine who wins the White House given the importance of more diverse states with large populations of African Americans, Latinas/os, Asian & Pacific Islanders and others. At 94% white, a state like Vermont might as well be next to make sure that we secure the whitest possible candidate. For Democratic leaders and voters, this should be part of the criteria to defeat Trump, mimicking former President Barack Obama’s diverse coalition.

That said, given that Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer don’t have a strong record with African Americans and Latinas/os, they should all drop out now. That includes Tulsi Gabbard and Deval Patrick. Not sure why Gabbard and Patrick are still in the race since they’re polling in the subzero range? 

What makes Buttigieg think that he can fix this country’s structural racial problem if he couldn’t get the job done at the local level? In terms of Bloomberg, he’ll never secure the majority support of African Americans and Latinas/os due to his racist stop-and-frisk policy. A convenient and self-serving apology won’t help. This also explains why Kamala Harris never had a chance, given her background as a prosecutor with America’s incarceration problem related to African American and Latinas/os.

From 11 Candidates to Three

As of early February, 2020, there should really only be three candidates left: former Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I’m not implying here that these candidates have strong records in terms of race or racial justice issues. For example, while Biden was part of Obama’s Deporter-in-Chief campaign, Sanders and Warren focus too much on class issues. While class is very important, so is race.

Given the importance of the 2020 president election, we can’t have too many Democratic candidates at this stage when Trump doesn’t have to deal with internal competition. In short, while the existing Democratic candidates compete against each other for individual donations and voters, Trump has the field all to himself.

This is a recipe for disaster for Democrats.

Stop With the Cannibalism

By attacking each other during primary debates and on the campaign trail, Democrats are only increasing Trump’s chances to get re-elected. While I believe in debate and differences of opinion, this is not the time to engage in WWE takedowns, where the ultimate Democratic candidate will be hobbled going against Trump. Why give Trump more ammunition? This makes no sense to me. Given that Trump has solidified his white nationalism base and agenda, like any tyrannical leader in world history, he’s consistently espousing and implementing his Draconian agenda with limited or obstacles. With the help of the GOP-led Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his racist base, Trump can actually “stand in the middle of Fight Avenue and shoot somebody” without political repercussions. If this were to occur, I wonder if Attorney General William Barr will just look the other way, like a good subordinate in the mafia?

Money Does Matter in Elections

If billionaires like Bloomberg and Steyer want to help the country (and the world), they should invest their billions in helping defeat Trump through donations to the ultimate Democratic candidates, direct ads against Trump and other legal avenues. This includes recruiting other billionaires and millionaires to pitch in. While the existing Democratic candidates are dividing the American donation pie among each other, Trump is raking in millions of dollars solely for himself and his white nationalist agenda. This includes the RNC, which, like the GOP-dominated Senate, is beholden to Trump. With millions of dollars at his disposal, Trump will continue to hold his white nationalist rallies and buy ads on television, radio and social media to secure his re-election.

This is another recipe for disaster for Democrats.

Unity and Clear Message on Progressive Values

In order for Democrats to win the White House in 2020, they must immediately unify around one candidate (with a strong VP candidate from a diverse background) and advance an agenda based on progressive values. This includes access to health care for all Americans residents/citizens, affordable housing, good-paying jobs and opportunity to pursue higher education without getting into massive debt. This also includes no brown kids in cages! While there are more issues, Democrats should keep the message clear and simple for all open-minded voters to understand.

In short, the ultimate Democratic candidate (and VP candidate) must speak in a
language that most voters understand, energizing millions of Americans (state-by-
state) to get to the ballot box on Tuesday, November 3.

***

Dr. Alvaro Huerta holds a joint faculty appointment in Urban & Regional Planning and Ethnic & Women’s Studies at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Among other publications, he’s the author of Defending Latina/o Immigrant Communities: The Xenophobic Era of Trump and Beyond. He holds a Ph.D. (city and regional planning) from UC Berkeley. He also holds an M.A. (urban planning) and a B.A. (history) from UCLA.