Connect with us

By Janell Ross

It’s an early contender for the most repeated political factoid of 2019: The 116th Congress is the most diverse in U.S. history. But the physical presence of people of color in Congress, which is one form of representation, does not automatically equal robust political advocacy. That could wind up disappointing some of the voters who sent these new members to Washington.

The kind of progressive, some might even say radical, changes that have been promised by some of this year’s new representatives — universal health care, the repeal of a tax system that largely benefits the wealthy, and the demolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — are far from guaranteed. So, beyond the remarkable images of young women of color joining a chamber that remains largely white and male, and the affirmational stories of American possibility, hard questions remain about whether a more diverse Congress will deliver something new.

“Sure, it is something that the country should applaud itself for,” said Leonard Moore, a professor of American history at the University of Texas at Austin, who wrote a book about Carl Stokes of Cleveland, who in 1967 became the first black man elected mayor of a major U.S. city.

“But, we are around the 50-year mark of black political representation,” Moore continued. “So I would have to ask: Should we still simply be celebrating the number of black people and Latinos who get into Congress? The issue, or the No. 1 issue, to me, is: Are our issues being addressed?”

Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., is determined to try. She grew up in a violent housing project, had a baby as a teenager, dropped out of high school and experienced homelessness. In 2018, Hayes owed more than $100,000 in student loans, the borrowing that helped her become an educator once named National Teacher of the Year.

Hayes spent the election season telling voters that her own experiences informed her politics, including her support of expanding gun control and universal health insurance for all Americans.

Hayes was one of the many black Democrats seeking office who identified as a progressive. A November analysis from the nonprofit Progressive Change Institute found that 42.9 percent of the incoming freshmen in Congress also supported Medicare for all and 60.3 percent supported boosting the minimum wage. A whopping 77.8 percent expressed support for ending tax cuts for the wealthy or building a tax code that aims to more deeply benefit working families.

Hayes defeated her Republican opponent by more than 10 points last fall in an overwhelmingly white district, and this month she became the first black female Democrat to represent Connecticut in Congress. She’s one of more than 50 black members of Congress, an all-time high, and one of nine black freshmen joining the House this year. While the overwhelming majority of the black members were sent to Congress by districts where black voters make up the majority, eight of the nine new members, like Hayes, come from majority-white districts.

“There’s a strong appetite right now for change,” Hayes told The Guardian just before the election.

The question of what black politicians feel they owe those they represent isn’t unique to them, but it’s long been a harder one for black politicians to answer. In March 1972, members of the fledgling Congressional Black Caucus and activists tried to answer it at a gathering in Gary, Indiana, which is sometimes called the National Black Political Convention.

African-Americans were experiencing unprecedented electoral success, winning mayor’s races and taking more than a dozen seats in Congress. But concern was growing over President Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” which aimed at appealing to white voters who opposed civil rights reforms and other social change.

At the Indiana convention, the black leaders drafted a 40-page document that identified policies black voters could use to evaluate politicians, including several related to black economic empowerment, Moore said.

The intervening years have included a number of legislative victories and failures, as measured by that document. But, nearly 50 years later, the racial wealth gap has expanded to yawning proportions, of which most white Americans remain unaware. Racial disparities in income, health, education and almost every other measure of social well-being remain.

“Today we find ourselves in a situation where some of these black elected officials have been in office two, three decades,” Moore said. “I am hoping the new people who have been elected — they have a lot of energy, a lot of fire now — will go to Congress and stay true.”

The energy of this Congress may recall, for some, the election night of 2008. Barack Obama, the first black man elected president, won with about 43 percent of white voters and majorities of everyone else. He had run on what his campaign aides boiled down to three words: “hope and change.”

As a candidate, Obama demonstrated both the ability to speak about race, injustice and inequality and the skill to evade it. Obama and his team learned early that the overwhelmingly white White House press corps and conservative critics seemed to expect Obama to serve as the nation’s racial counselor while also remaining ready to harp on any mention of race.

As president, Obama often chose race-neutral language while pressing for health care, criminal justice and immigration reform. He faced criticism both from those who said he was doing more for black Americans than for anyone else and those who said he was not doing enough.

“I think [black voter] expectations for Obama were somewhat tempered,” Moore said, “until he came out in favor of the gay marriage issue.”

In supporting gay marriage, Obama had taken on a then-controversial topic, and he’d used some of his political capital to do so, Moore said. The decision made some black Americans wonder why the president was not willing to take similar action on other issues.

“I think the black base was like, ‘Well now, hold on a minute. This is a polarizing issue too. Hold on, brother,’” Moore said. “So while I think a lot of respect and admiration remains, there [are] a lot of people who felt that he did not do all that he could to advance black interests, a black agenda, a radical set of reforms.”

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Over 60 House members — including half the Democrats on Judiciary — favor starting Trump impeachment inquiry

Published

on

Here are the 66 members of the House of Representatives who favor starting an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. There are 65 Democrats — including 13 of the 24 Democrats who serve on the House Judiciary Committee — and one Republican.

Democrats:

  1. Alma Adams, N.C.
  2. Nanette Barragán, Calif.
  3. Don Beyer, Va.
  4. Earl Blumenauer, Ore.
  5. Suzanne Bonamici, Ore.
  6. Brendan Boyle, Penn.
  7. G.K. Butterfield, N.C.
  8. Joaquin Castro, Texas
  9. David Cicilline, R.I. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  10. Yvette Clarke, N.Y.
  11. Steve Cohen, Tenn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  12. Danny K. Davis, Ill.
  13. Madeleine Dean, Penn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  14. Diana DeGette, Colo.
  15. Val Demings, Fla. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  16. Mark DeSaulnier, Calif.
  17. Lloyd Doggett, Texas
  18. Veronica Escobar, Texas (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  19. Adriano Espaillat, N.Y.
  20. Dwight Evans, Penn.
  21. Marcia Fudge, Ohio
  22. Jesús García, Ill.
  23. Mary Gay Scanlon, Penn. (Vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee)
  24. Al Green, Texas
  25. Raul Grijalva, Ariz. (Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee)
  26. Jared Huffman, Calif.
  27. Pramila Jayapal, Wash. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  28. Robin Kelly, Ill.
  29. Barbara Lee, Calif.
  30. Andy Levin, Mich.
  31. Ted Lieu, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  32. Alan Lowenthal, Calif.
  33. Tom Malinowski, N.J.
  34. Carolyn Maloney, N.Y.
  35. Betty McCollum, Minn.
  36. Jim McGovern, Mass. (Chairman of the House Rules Committee)
  37. Gwen Moore, Wis.
  38. Seth Moulton, Mass.
  39. Grace Napolitano, Calif.
  40. Joe Neguse, Colo. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  41. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, N.Y.
  42. Ilhan Omar, Minn.
  43. Bill Pascrell, N.J.
  44. Chellie Pingree, Me.
  45. Mark Pocan, Wis.
  46. Ayanna Pressley, Mass.
  47. Mike Quigley, Ill.
  48. Jamie Raskin, Md. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  49. Kathleen Rice, N.Y.
  50. Cedric Richmond, La. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  51. Bobby Rush, Ill.
  52. Tim Ryan, Ohio
  53. Brad Sherman, Calif.
  54. Jackie Speier, Calif.
  55. Greg Stanton, Arizona (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
  56. Bennie Thompson, Miss. (Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee)
  57. Rashida Tlaib, Mich.
  58. Paul Tonko, N.Y.
  59. Norma Torres, Calif.
  60. Juan Vargas, Calif.
  61. Filemon Vela, Texas
  62. Maxine Waters, Calif. (Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee)
  63. John Yarmuth, Ky. (Chairman of the House Budget Committee)
  64. Eric Swalwell, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee, member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 2020 presidential candidate)
  65. Dan Kildee, Mich. (chief deputy whip of House Democratic caucus)

Republicans

Justin Amash, Mich.

CORRECTION (May 30, 2019, 1:25 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated the position of Rep. Harley Rouda, D-Calif., on beginning an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Rouda has said he supports an impeachment inquiry only if Trump does not comply with congressional subpoenas, not before.

Dartunorro Clark contributed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Tory ballot vote: What time is second ballot on the Tory leadership today? Who will go?

Published

on

VOTING commences once again today as Tory MPs undergo a second round at the polls to decide their next leader. What time is the second ballot for the Tory leadership race and who will be kicked off?

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court declines to change double jeopardy rule in a case with Manafort implications

Published

on

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declined on Monday to change the longstanding rule that says putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not violate the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy — a case that drew attention because of its possible implications for President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

The 7-2 ruling was a defeat for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, convicted of robbery in 2008 and pulled over seven years later for a traffic violation. When police found a handgun in his car, he was prosecuted under Alabama’s law barring felons from possessing firearms. The local U.S. attorney then charged Gamble with violating a similar federal law. Because of the added federal conviction, his prison sentence was extended by nearly three years.

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense. But for more than 160 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that being prosecuted once by a state and again in federal court, or the other way around, for the same crime doesn’t violate the protection against double jeopardy because the states and the federal government are “separate sovereigns.”

The case attracted more than the usual attention because of the prospect that Trump may pardon Manafort, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for violating federal fraud laws. A presidential pardon could free him from federal prison, but it would not protect him from being prosecuted on similar state charges, which were filed by New York. Overturning the rule allowing separate prosecutions for the same offenses would have worked in Manafort’s favor.

Gamble’s lawyer, Louis Chaiten of Cleveland, said the nation’s founders understood the protection against double jeopardy to ban any second prosecution for the same offense. Under English common law, the roots of American law, there was no “separate sovereigns” exception. A person could not be put on trial in England if already tried for the same offense in another country.

Chaiten also argued that the states and the federal government are not truly independent anyway and are instead part of a complete national system. He quoted Alexander Hamilton, who described them as “kindred systems, part of one whole.”

And Chaiten said Congress has made the problem worse by dramatically expanding the number and scope of federal laws in recent years, creating more duplication with state laws — something never envisioned in earlier court decisions that allowed double prosecutions.

But the Trump administration said the longstanding double jeopardy rule allows states and the federal government to pursue distinct interests without interfering with each other. Changing the current understanding by barring subsequent prosecutions would allow foreign court actions to preclude U.S. trials for crimes against Americans, the government said.

Civil liberties groups also said the rule has allowed the federal government to pursue notorious civil rights violations that states were unwilling or unable to pursue.

Gamble’s argument appealed to some of the court’s liberals and conservatives. Two years ago, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in saying that the court’s past double jeopardy rulings were due for a “fresh examination.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending