Street Roots • March 18-24, 2016
COLOR, from page 8
which is kind of a double-edged sword. If you
come from a country where voting was
punished or somewhat risky, there’s a
cultural tradition on some level. But also
they’ve not been invested, with civic
engagement coordinators in churches and
faith-based institutions.
Actually, I was down in San Diego recently,
and I learned that Mexico is required by law
to advertise PSAs about their upcoming
election in San Diego because there are a lot
of Mexicans in San Diego. So the country of
Mexico is advertising its upcoming election, .
which is in July. But there’s no advertising in
San Diego for the San Diego elections (in
terms of it being a law). So we do not invest
in informing and prioritizing and getting
everybody out to the polls.
J.Z.: In this current election, where are the
candidates getting it wrong and where are they
getting it right when it comes to courting this
progressive bloc?
S.P.: I think that Bernie’s focus on
inequality resonates in a country and
communities that have great amounts of
inequality. I think his language around
criminal justice reform has gotten much
better and much stronger. That’s all for the
good. I still think he has a way to go in terms
of appreciating the distinctness of racial
inequality, separate and apart from economic
inequality in this country. So the level of
emphasis of the singularity of racism, I would
say, is insufficient.
On Hillary’s side, she gets the singularity
issue. She speaks to it better. She is
challenging whites to engage in owning and
understanding their privilege, and she’s
introducing to the public discourse language
about race that I haven’t heard in 30 years.
J.Z.: For example?
S.P.: She has said you have to look at race
as a distinct entity. She gave a speech in
Harlem recently specifically talking about that
issue. She called for a hundred-plus-billion-
dollar program to address the inequality in
the communities of color, so that kind of
specific focus is helpful. I still think she
should go further. It’s almost like you need to
blend the two of them. You have her race
specific lens and then Bernie’s radicalism
melded together.
J.Z.: It’s a two-way street. If you’re a
progressive voter and you don’t have a candidate
who reflects your views, you’re cornered. It’s also
about getting more people of color and
progressives engaged in politics. Where are we
with that side of it?
News
That helps advance the movement. It sends a
signal to people who care about those issues,
and it brands them in connection with them.
That’s something that can be done right now
and people need to be challenged on.
Someone in the movement said that people
see the protagonist in social change as
somebody else. Part of my mission with this
book is to let people see that we have a
majority now - we actually can make the
change. So people can step up and run.
People can probably have a bigger impact on
getting elected than they may even fully
appreciate or realize.
J.Z.: What you’re talking about seems like an
extension of your work on the Obama
campaigns. This idea of taking back ownership
of the political system from the corporate world
and bringing it back to the people. It seems a
revisioning of2008 and the “Hope” campaign.
S.P.: Yes - and the actual meta lessons of
2016 is that the big corporate-donor
dominance is not carrying the day. Jeb Bush
raised 100-plus million dollars and went
nowhere. Whereas Bernie has 5 million,
small-dollar contributions, and that has really
propelled him to the place he’s in. I think
that says something about the limits of big
money and the potential of small money
collected and aggregated through our
technological tools.
J.Z.: It often seems that the politics
addressing people of color are relegated to the
extremes - reactions to police behavior, overt
discrimination and messaging how to alleviate
violations on their lives. And that often seems
dismissive of real proactive discussions around
alleviating poverty, strengthening our education
system, and so on.
S.P.: The language and the topics changed
as the election moved from Iowa and New
Hampshire to the South. Now, as they move
out of the South, are they going to continue
talking about the issues they did in the
South?
North Carolina, Virginia even Georgia are
places that could be competitive if there could
be an inspired, mobilized black vote.
Another big test or challenge is going to be
what happens with the vice presidency? Are
we going to finally desegregate the office of
vice president? We’ve never had a person of
color in that office. It’s strictly of calculation
of what you think the electorate will tolerate.
And either of these older white candidates
are going to need a younger, inspiring person
of color to balance out the ticket
I think it’s absolutely necessary for either
candidate to get the large, enthusiastic
support they’re going to need if they’re going
to win.
J.Z.: Beyond the history of overt policies
S.P.: It’s about the (future) candidates, and
against minorities, what’s the consequence when
also holding the current candidates
progressives and people of color aren’t engaged
accountable. There’s more that should be
with the election. I think of your example of the
done to pressure the current Democratic
G.I. Bill, which actually had many racially
candidates who have raised between them
discriminatory policies built into it. What are
$200 million. Can they take $2 million to
we losing today, policy wise?
create or support existing efforts? The Black
Lives Matter movement and their allies are
S.P.:-The clearest, the most recent is the
trying to identify and run candidates for
district attorney and to train operatives to run Democrats lost the House and lost the
Senate. And then with that, lost the
those campaigns. Can these campaigns put
opportunity to pass immigration reform. So
$2 million to that effort and partnership with
. we had that moment, and the potential to
Black Lives Matter and seed the ground for
move those things forward, and lost it And
there to be new leaders and new candidates?
Page 9
now we’re stymied on the Supreme Court
pick. Had we not lost the Senate, we could, as
you’re supposed to do, nominate a
replacement and put that person on the
court, which then has policy implications for
all the issues before the court. Union rights,
immigration issues, freedom of choice. All
those issues.
J.Z.: As a figurehead, has Obama carried the
day in bringing along this progressive body?
S.P.: It’s almost like which sectors? There
was the video with the young black giri crying
when she heard that Obama was not going to
be president anymore. I think in terms of the
children of this country, who have only known
the Obamas as the first family, that is going
to be hugely significant to the future of this
country for
decades. In terms
of the immediate
next level of the
"Part of my mission with this
progressive
book is to let people see that
political
we have a majority now - we
infrastructure,
actually can make the change.
we’re not where
we need to be. So So people can step tip and run.
there needs to be People can probably have a
both a bench of
bigger impact on getting elected
candidates and
than they may even fully
operatives. Too
appreciate or realize."
much of the
political party
infrastructure is
still controlled by
whites and not
focused on communities of color, so there’s
still a lot to be done.
J.Z.: You mentioned earlier the distinction
between racial and economic inequalities. Our
newspaper works with people in poverty. What
needs to happen to bring more people of poverty
into our political discussions?
S.P.: Part of it is delivering. There’s a video
the White House put out of a young
conservative white man introducing the
president, saying that Obamacare saved his
life. That he had opposed the president both
times, and he was atoning for that. Providing
a policy agenda which delivers for everybody
is part of the issue. Too little of our politics is
explicitly relevant to poor people in terms of
seeing why they have to participate, how will
it actually improve their lives directly.
I think the public policy debate is too timid
and too narrow. For example: What I talk
about in the book is a wealth tax, not just an
income tax. The top 1 percent in this country
has $26 trillion in wealth. That’s a household
of $13 million or more in assets. If you just
did a 2 percent wealth tax, you could end
poverty - just on the top 1 percent of people
in the country. And it doesn’t even have to
take money from them. With your stock
market returns, you should be able to make
10 percent on your money, so we’re saying
just make 8 percent and we’ll end poverty. If
there was a campaign and it was a part of our
dialogue where the top 1 percent will just
have to get richer a little slower, then you can
end poverty - that would be very different.
joanne@streetroots. org