Mediocre
Page 22
And so, four women of color who should have won their elections did. In the process they energized young voters and voters of color, and they became immediate targets of both the left and the right. They had run for office promising to represent their values and their constituents, and that’s exactly what they did. House members don’t get six years to adjust to life in government the way Senate members do, and women of color in the House know that they aren’t guaranteed the reelections that many white men in Congress feel confident they will get, so if they were going to fulfill their promises to voters, they needed to act quickly. Rashida Tlaib showed up in Congress ready to advocate for Detroiters. She submitted 153 appropriations requests during her first four months in office and opened four neighborhood centers in her district.35 She also joined up regularly with Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Pressley to push Congress on progressive positions around areas like the environment, health care, and reproductive justice.
Like Tlaib, Omar quickly got to work as well. She fast earned a reputation for being unafraid to hold members of the Trump administration accountable, and for asking the tough questions that many seasoned Democrats were afraid to ask. When Trump’s new special envoy Elliott Abrams, a longtime State Department official whose work had been associated with human rights violations in El Salvador, appeared before the House, Omar asked him bluntly, “Do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?”36
Within a few months Omar had worked as a strong proponent of Medicare for All, had cosponsored prounion legislation in the PRO Act, and had begun working on housing initiatives with the aim of building one million homes to “give people an opportunity to have a dignified, safe place to live.” She’d also begun working with the Congressional Black Caucus to address previously unaddressed issues in the Black community like youth suicide, mental health, and the maternal mortality rate.37
Pressley has introduced and cosponsored multiple pieces of legislation since joining Congress. In December 2019, with Representatives Omar and Bonnie Watson Coleman, she introduced legislation aimed at stopping the criminalization and marginalization of Black and brown girls in US schools.38 That same month, she introduced sweeping criminal-justice-reform legislation that would decriminalize sex work and end the cash bail system, solitary confinement, and the death penalty. If enacted, these changes would go far in correcting some of the ways in which our criminal-justice system has targeted people of color and marginalized people. In introducing the legislation, Pressley argued, “For far too long, those closest to the pain have not been closest to the power, resulting in a racist, xenophobic, rogue, and fundamentally flawed criminal legal system,” adding, “Our resolution calls for a bold transformation of the status quo—devoted to dismantling injustices so that the system is smaller, safer, less punitive, and more humane.”39 In January of 2020, Pressley passed credit-score-reform legislation aimed at helping people recover more quickly from financial hardship with changes such as increasing protections against predatory lending, limiting the use of credit scores in job applications, and shortening the time that adverse credit events stay on credit reports.40
In Ocasio-Cortez’s first months in office, she worked on legislation to remove restrictions against using psychedelic drugs for medical research in the hopes of better treating mental illness and depression; she cosponsored legislation for affordable insurance-covered and over-the-counter birth control. She has battled Trump’s efforts to add citizenship questions to the US Census (seen by many as a way of gathering data on immigrant populations of color), was an outspoken opponent of Amazon’s proposal to expand its headquarters into New York, and—most notable of all—was a cosponsor of and the most vocal voice behind the Green New Deal.
Upon her arrival in D.C., Ocasio-Cortez was both dismissed as a naïve millennial and demonized as a dangerous socialist. Her clothing was critiqued; her young, Bronx-style speech was ridiculed. But nothing targeted her with more outrage than the Green New Deal. Let’s look closely at the Green New Deal so we can understand how bonkers the conservative response to it has been. The Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution to address our rapidly worsening global climate crisis. It consists of multiple goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like moving to renewable power, upgrading energy efficiency in existing buildings, and investing in electric vehicles and light rail. The deal aimed to accomplish all of this while also protecting vulnerable communities that have economically relied on fossil fuels with job training and economic development goals.41
Yet even Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed both wary and dismissive of the young Democratic Socialist’s efforts: “While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what’s important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House,” Pelosi told reporters in an apparent dismissal of Ocasio-Cortez’s online popularity and the legislation she had helped put together.42
Republicans, of course, treated Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal like it was actual terrorism on paper. None of the below quotes are made up. These are real words, from grown-ass adults who were elected to represent the American people.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas said that the Green New Deal would force Americans to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.” Trump claimed that it would take away everyone’s “airplane rights.” Wyoming senator John Barrasso issued perhaps the most bizarre of all the dire warnings about the Green New Deal, telling Americans to stock up on beef and ice cream, because under the Green New Deal, “livestock will be banned.”43
Tlaib has also faced unprecedented amounts of scrutiny and hatred in her work, and simply for existing. She has often found herself at the crosshairs of political outrage—not only for calling the president a “motherfucker” (which was honestly one of my favorite moments of the year), but also due to her Muslim faith and her outspoken support of Palestinian people. Any time Tlaib has discussed issues regarding Israel or Palestine, she has found herself at the center of outrage from the right and the left.
Pressley faced widespread backlash for celebrating her identity, most notably in July 2019 when she dared to speak about being a proud Black woman in Congress. At a Netroots Nation convention, Pressley urged representatives from marginalized groups to truly represent their identities and culture in their work instead of sacrificing the needs of their community to the status quo:
I don’t want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need Black faces that don’t want to be a Black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.44
Outrage over Pressley’s asking people to represent any interests besides those of the white men who have always had massive influence in government was swift. Pressley was accused of being divisive, even racist. In a Washington Examiner article titled “Ayanna Pressley’s Disturbing Progressive Threat,” Stephen Kent used Pressley’s comments to support his position that “diversity has been a threat to progressives’ vision of America ever since their movement crystallized under President Woodrow Wilson,” adding, “There has to be a more robust response to the radical identitarian politics of Pressley and her allies.”45 Republican representative Liz Cheney directly accused Pressley of racism, claiming that Pressley said that political voices were only legitimate if the person “espouses some preapproved set of beliefs.”46
But of the four women, Ilhan Omar has perhaps been the most vilified by both Democrats and Republicans. Black, Muslim, and unapologeti
c, she has been an easy target because of her critiques of Israel and Israeli lobbyists—which have at times been sloppy and open to various interpretations. After tweeting an insinuation that the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC’s) money was responsible for the Republican focus on her opinions regarding Israel’s policies toward Palestinian people, she was accused of playing into antisemitic tropes about the power of Jewish wealth—even though the PAC ignored blatant antisemitic statements made by Republicans. Republicans had a field day with their outrage. Trump said Omar should resign. The backlash over the tweet was so severe that Omar was publicly admonished by leaders of her own party.
As Omar has continued to speak her truth and to represent the issues that matter to her and her constituents, she has also continued to be a target of hate. Trump has even spliced deceptively edited audio of one of Omar’s speeches discussing the impact of the 9/11 attacks on Muslim Americans with footage of the attacks themselves in order to make Omar appear to sympathize with the attackers, igniting racist, Islamophobic rage against her. When Trump was asked if he regretted posting such an inflammatory and misleading video given the threats she had received afterward, he replied, “Not at all,” and added, “She’s got a way about her that’s very, very bad, I think, for our country. She’s extremely unpatriotic, and extremely disrespectful to our country.”47
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Pressley, and Omar are public figures and elected representatives. Some would say that by running for office they chose a life of public scrutiny and comment. But they are also human beings, and no human should have to weather the torrent of hatred they have endured.
Sometimes it’s the apathy that is most soul-crushing. In June 2019, Tlaib read one of the countless threats she had received since taking office in January of that year to FBI official Michael Garrity while questioning him on domestic terrorism: “‘I was totally excited and pleased when I read about how 49 Muslims were killed and many were’”—Tlaib paused to catch her breath through tears—“‘many more were wounded in New Zealand. This is a great start. Let’s hope and pray that it continues here in the good ole USA. The only good Muslim is a—is a dead one.’”
She asked the official why the FBI didn’t have the tools to investigate such threats. “We get so many—we get so many of them and I always find myself wondering, what happens?” she said. “What happens to these individuals? And I’m being sincere. I’m a mother. And I want to go home to my two boys.”48
Even with the constant stream of hatred and bigotry thrown their way, Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Omar push ahead with the progressive agendas they were elected to fight for. They continue to put forth amendments and sponsor legislation to serve their constituents. They continue to ask tough questions of the Trump administration, Republicans, and their own party. In discussing how hard the four of them have had to fight during their time in D.C., Omar sounded defiant and determined: “I think we have a beef with almost anyone here because there’s a lack of courage. It seems like we’re all radical because we deeply care about the people we represent and we want to throw down for them.”49
Part of their ability to stay productive and positive through it all comes from their strong support of each other. Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, and Omar have backed each other up through the controversies. At the base of their shared politics and advocacy lies a friendship that has helped get them through the worst of the harassment and threats.
“When I joined the race, I became a part of this amazing group of people who were not only speaking to the progressive values that I cared about, but who were also people I could be in solidarity with,” Omar explained to Ava DuVernay. “When our day to day was filled with lots of struggle, it was good to share something or see others share and just send the positive vibes.”50
The victories of these four young, outspokenly progressive women of color dominated news cycles in 2018 and early 2019. When I look at their elections, I’m reminded of what Lani Guinier said about the power of support for a candidate of color who truly represents their constituency, if only the representatives know that they can get enough votes to win an election by appealing so directly to the values of marginalized communities. All four districts that these women ran were safely Democratic districts with large populations of color that felt overlooked by their states and country. In all four districts, the financial disparities between people of color and the larger white population in their state showed that the sense of being overlooked had been more than a feeling.
Three of the women—Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib—grew up in the area they sought to represent and had built strong relationships with their communities. Pressley had lived in Boston for over fifteen years by the time she ran for Congress. Their ideas appealed to a broad coalition of underprivileged people in their constituencies. And they didn’t have to sacrifice any of their people to appease a comfortable majority.
In their mission to prioritize issues most impacting the marginalized communities they serve, they’ve steadfastly focused on the concerns that many Democrats say they wish more representatives in their party would stand up for. They’ve kept their focus on the environment, health care, affordable education, reproductive justice, affordable housing, labor rights, and other core progressive causes. All while consistently fighting against lobbyists and big-money politics—as well as Trump’s bigoted and increasingly authoritarian agenda.
But when I was compiling a list of their efforts and accomplishments, I had to first sort through thousands of search results that were much more focused on the controversies around them. I hope that when their constituents look to see what Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, and Pressley have done for them, they’ll be able to find it amidst all the noise.
When I think about the trajectory our social progress is supposed to take—the way we’ve been taught in school that it should work—and I look at how little it tracks with how we treat women of color who dare challenge the political status quo, I am dismayed. I’m dismayed not only because it appears that women of color currently working in politics are treated with the same, if not more, disdain, blatant racism and sexism, and outright hatred that Shirley Chisholm faced—but also because the status quo they are blasted for challenging has remained so unchanged. We celebrate progress, and we talk about increased diversity within our government. Yet our Congress is still overwhelmingly white and male; our presidency is still overwhelmingly white and exclusively male. And the important advances that Shirley Chisholm fought for in 1972—issues like environmental protections, protection from government surveillance and invasion of privacy, campaign finance reform, and equal pay for women—are all changes we still fight for today. It’s as if when we continuously pass up the opportunity to listen to those most affected by the shortcomings of our systems, and instead continue to reward those who benefit most from those systems, we end up making no progress at all.
“LISTEN TO BLACK WOMEN”
The work of civil rights theorist Lani Guinier made its way back into a few headlines during the 2016 election cycle. No, not because for some reason Hillary’s candidacy had everyone talking about Bill Clinton’s transgressions, but because suddenly Guinier’s ideas about cumulative voting—voting for more than one candidate, often ranking preference—didn’t seem so outrageous.
It started on the right. It’s hard to remember now, but there was a time when even Republicans were dismayed about Trump’s rising popularity. Concerned with how the large Republican candidate field was spreading moderate support among multiple candidates while concentrating far-right support for Trump, people started bringing up Guinier’s ideas for a voting process that would prevent such a scenario from making someone like Trump the Republican nominee.51
With cumulative voting, candidates who had a broad appeal wouldn’t become lost among the other candidates who had broad appeal; the process would be a guardrail against electing someone who represented the fringe interests of a party. A candidate
who was the first choice for some and the second and third choice for many could potentially have swung a lot of states in the primary away from Trump.
After the general election, it was the left that invoked the work of Guinier. Cumulative voting could have lessened the vitriol of the Democratic primaries and led voters to see the benefits in both Clinton and Sanders, as well as to feel like they had a say in the victory no matter who became the party’s nominee. In the general election, cumulative voting would have lessened the impact of the votes for Jill Stein; people could have shown their dissatisfaction with the two-party system by putting some of their votes toward the Green Party while also hedging their bets with a vote for Clinton.52
In every step of the process, cumulative voting might have gotten us out of the mess we are currently in, where we have a president who lost the popular vote and brings us closer to war and authoritarianism every day.
But Guinier’s ideas were seen as radical attempts to place Black voters above white voters—because she was a Black woman. If she had not been a Black woman, and if she had positioned cumulative voting as anything other than a way to increase representation for Black Americans (even though she did demonstrate multiple times that cumulative voting would help all underrepresented groups and create a more representative government for everybody), maybe she would have been listened to. Maybe her ideas would have caught on. But even for all the hand-wringing since the 2016 election, I don’t think that Guinier could bring her ideas to the national stage today without being crucified in the same way she was in 1993. She would still be a Black woman making proposals that fundamentally challenge white male power. Even though ignoring her may have cost us so much, we still are in no way ready to hear her.