Bernie Sanders and Voters of Color
So far, Bernie Sanders has, overall, lost the vote for African Americans and Latinos to Hillary Clinton by significant margins:
- In South Carolina, Clinton won 85 percent of the non-white vote (and the vast majority of non-white voters in South Carolina were African American); Sanders won only 15 percent.
- In Alabama, Clinton won 91 percent of the African American vote; Sanders won 6 percent.
- In Georgia Clinton won 85 percent of the African American vote; Sanders 14 percent.
- In Massachusetts, Clinton won 59 percent of the non-white vote; Sanders won 41 percent.
- In Virginia, Clinton won 84 percent of the non-white vote; Sanders won 16 percent.
- In Texas, Clinton won 83 percent of the African American vote and 71 percent of the Latino vote; Sanders won 15 percent and 29 percent respectively.
- In Mississippi, Clinton won 89 percent of the African American vote; Sanders won 11 percent.
- In Michigan, Clinton won 68 percent of the African American vote; Sanders won 28 percent.
Here is a link to exit polling from CNN:
www.cnn.com/...
Although Sanders did much better with the Latino vote in Nevada and Colorado than he did in Texas (in fact he may have won the Latino vote in each of those states or only lost it by a narrow margin), he still has lost the Latino vote overall in the 2016 Democratic primaries and caucuses. In Nevada, only about 15,000 Latinos voted in the Democratic caucus, and, in Colorado, about 120,000 people total voted in the entire Democratic caucus. In contrast, about 440,000 Latinos voted in the Texas Democratic primary.
What should Sanders do to try to win a larger percentage of the vote of African Americans and Latinos? I have two proposals.
1. 40 Acres and a Mule: Pledge to Support John Conyers’ Bill H.R. 40
In January, 1865—near the end of the U.S. Civil War—Union General William Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, which called for each freed family of slaves to be given 40 acres of tillable land on the islands and coast of South Carolina. The Union Army also had a number of mules that they gave to the freed slaves who settled the land. The policy of the United States’ granting freed slaves tillable land came to be known as “forty acres and a mule.” Unfortunately, after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, the white supremacist U.S. president Andrew Johnson gave the land to its former owners and ended the policy of 40 acres and a mule. Here is a link to an article by Henry Louis Gates on the issue:
www.pbs.org/...
In 1989, U.S. congressman John Conyers first introduced a bill entitled H.R. 40, named after the policy “forty acres and a mule.” He has introduced it every year since. The bill “Establishes the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.” The bill has never made it out of committee. Here is a link to information on the bill:
www.congress.gov/...
Acclaimed essayist and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coats, who is an expert on reparations for slavery, has endorsed the bill. According to Coats,
A crime that implicates the entire American people deserves its hearing in the legislative body that represents them.
John Conyers’s HR 40 is the vehicle for that hearing. No one can know what would come out of such a debate. Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.
Here is a link to Coats’ seminal essay on reparations for slavery “The Case for Reparations:”
www.theatlantic.com/...
In the future, perhaps H.R. 40 could establish a commission—a sort of truth and reconciliation or truth and equity commission—not only to study reparations for slavery, but also to study reparations for Jim Crow and other manifestations of racism. Jim Crow and racism were and are doing damage to many African Americans.
Senator Bernie Sanders should come out in favor of H.R. 40 and pledge that, if he is elected president, he will support the bill, promote it, argue for it, and sign it into law. Not only would Sanders’ making this pledge now increase his chances of winning the Democratic nomination, but it would increase the likelihood that H.R. 40—or something like—will become law in the U.S. sooner rather than later. This would be very good. The U.S. government’s providing just reparations for slavery, Jim Crow and racism would increase the likelihood of some of the members of society who are able to make the fewest choices being able to make more choices than they can now. For example, passing a law in which the U.S. government would provide reparations for slavery would increase the likelihood of helping some of the most vulnerable members of U.S. society, namely the children of underprivileged African Americans. I argue for the U.S. implementing reparations for slavery in the following diary:
www.dailykos.com/...
2. Sí Se Puede: Focus on Executive Orders on Immigration
Sanders should focus on the executive orders on immigration that he favors and argue why those that he favors are more just than those that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favors. The advantage of executive orders is that Sanders wouldn’t have to rely on the U.S. Congress to get them passed. He could do it on his own. People have criticized some of Sanders’s plans as not being realistic in the short-term because Congress would vote against them. Executive orders don’t have that defect.
According to Sanders’s immigration plan (“A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy”),
Expand DACA and DAPA – As President, Senator Sanders will expand President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) to provide broad administrative relief to the parents of DREAMers, the parents of citizens, the parents of legal permanent residents, and other immigrants who would have been given legal protections by the 2013 Senate-passed immigration bill.
This would allow all undocumented people who have been in the United States for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported. This broad administrative relief is well within the President’s executive authority.
Over 85% of the nation’s aspiring Americans have resided in the United States for at least five years.
Under this plan, close to nine million individuals would be able to apply for deferred action.
Thus, all people who would have been given protection from deportation under the 2013 Senate-passed bill would be protected from deportation under Sanders’s immigration plan. And, under the 2013 Senate-passed bill, the only undocumented people who could be deported are those who came to the U.S. after December 31, 2011 and/or committed a disqualifying crime. They also must pay a fine, fees and back taxes. Thus, under Sanders’s plan, nearly nine million individuals could apply for deferred action, and the vast majority would receive deferred action.
Clinton’s immigration plan is less robust. She says that she would “Defend President Obama’s DACA and DAPA executive actions.” She also says that she would “do everything possible under the law to go further to protect families.” Specifically, she says, “If Congress continues its refusal to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will put in place a simple, straightforward, accessible system for parents of DREAMers and others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to be able to make their case and be eligible for deferred action as well.” So, Clinton would only protect parents of DREAMers and “others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to be able to make their case and be eligible for deferred action as well.”
Here is a link to information about whom DREAMers are:
www.immigrationpolicy.org/...
According to a Pew study, about 9.6 million undocumented people are not protected under DACA, DAPA or any other U.S. law that protects one from deportation. See page 8 of this report:
www.pewhispanic.org/...
Under Sanders’s plan, all of these people would be able to stay if they entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011, at least as long as they didn’t have a major criminal record. Under Clinton’s plan, they could stay only if they could prove a “history of service and contribution to their communities.” That would probably preclude some undocumented people from being able to stay. Some might not be able to prove a history of contribution to their communities, and in any case the administrative and appeal process would be inefficient. And I don’t think one should have to prove that in order to be able to stay. What should be most relevant is whether letting them stay would increase the likelihood of helping those members of society who are the most vulnerable and able to make the fewest choices. For example, they should not be sent back if there is reason to believe that they would be killed if they were sent back. If they are killed, they cannot benefit society or help those who are less privileged and less able to help themselves.
However, Texas and 25 other states have sued the United States for Obama’s issuing the DACA and DAPA executive orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put DACA and DAPA on hold. Obama appealed the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it will rule on the case some time during the summer of 2016. It’s possible that Obama will win. Justice Roberts and/or Justice Kennedy could vote with those who think DACA and DAPA are constitutional. However, it’s also possible that the Court’s ruling will be a 4-4 tie. In that case, the lower court’s ruling will be affirmed without setting a binding precedent for other circuits.
The possibility of a 4-4 tie supports the view that it is very important for the U.S. Senate to vote on whether to confirm Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is important that our highest court is able to decide cases that are deeply important to the lives of millions of people. Moreover, the chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will be deadlocked 4-4 on whether Obama’s executive orders on immigration are constitutional is one reason that Sanders should pledge that, if he is elected president in 2016, he would nominate Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue the latter in the following diary:
www.dailykos.com/...
Another person Sanders should say that he would consider for the U.S. Supreme Court is Harvard professor Charles Ogletreee. Here is a link to information on him:
hls.harvard.edu/...
He is highly qualified for the Supreme Court. Moreover, every time I’ve seen him speak, I’ve been impressed with how thoughtful he is and how good his commitments are. He has written several important books on race and justice. He also rightly opposes capital punishment. Here is a link to an op-ed piece he wrote on the subject for the Washington Post:
www.washingtonpost.com/...