D.C. Deserves Statehood

The Washington, D.C. Admission Act sponsored by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton has gained considerable attention in the past year. It would establish statehood for the District of Columbia, which would allow residents voting representation in Congress for the first time. The Committee on Oversight and Reform voted 25-19 in favor of the bill on April 14, paving the way for a House floor vote in the coming weeks. H.R. 51 passed the House in the last Congress on a partisan vote of 232-180, but it died in the Republican-controlled Senate. A companion bill, S. 51, has been introduced in the Senate with support of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, but is expected to be met with Republican opposition by filibuster.

 Washington, D.C.’s lack of statehood is harshly unrepresentative. Since its residents do not belong to any state, they have no representation (by voting members) in either house. But despite having no votes in Congress, the city’s residents pay federal taxes. This results in taxation without representation, since they have no say in how their tax dollars are used. In fact, D.C. residents pay the highest per-capita federal income taxes in the country, and collectively pay more in federal income tax than the residents of 22 other states.

 Providing statehood to the District would also be a large step for racial justice in the United States, since its population is 46 percent Black and 11 percent Hispanic. The Senate systematically overrepresents white voters and underrepresents voters of color, as states like Wyoming and Vermont, which are more than 90 percent white and have fewer people than D.C., both have two senators just like large states. If D.C. were to become a state, it would be the first with a plurality of Black residents, a considerable step toward giving people of color the representation they deserve in Congress. Raphael Warnock’s victory in Georgia in January made him the eleventh African-American to serve in the Senate in U.S. history. Currently, three senators are African American (Raphael Warnock, Cory Booker, and Tim Scott), and establishing statehood for D.C. could expand this group.

 Given the country’s partisan gridlock, the statehood efforts have been met with opposition from Republican politicians, who believe the Democratic Party is using the issue to help their party gain two more Senate seats. Republican leaders including Mitch McConnell view the idea of D.C. statehood not as a matter of representation, but as a partisan attempt by Democrats to change the rules of an established system to gain extra votes in the Senate. Considering the Senate’s current composition, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, making D.C. a state would very likely increase the Democrats’ chances of controlling the Senate in future years. With the critical importance of Senate majorities and the current and recent close partisan balances there, it is understandable why Republicans would be unwilling to expand the Senate.

However, I believe there is nothing partisan about giving American citizens federal representation; it is the right thing to do for people who live in the District. The political ideologies of D.C. voters are irrelevant to the principle that they deserve representation, since they are American citizens and pay federal taxes. Establishing D.C. statehood would be a major achievement for racial justice and equal representation in our democracy. While there are certainly political repercussions, any hesitation toward it should be secondary to the importance of federal representation for all citizens living in the United States.

The Battle for the Senate

The presidential election is getting a lot of buzz lately, and rightfully so, since this election will determine our country’s prospects for the next four years and beyond. But despite all the attention surrounding the presidency, there are many competitive Senate races that will decide who controls the Senate. As we have seen during the current 116th Congress, holding a Senate majority is an incredibly powerful position for either party to be in. Currently, the Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, so the Democrats have the often-tough challenge of needing to gain at least three seats. In addition, they will almost certainly lose Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, which they were lucky to win in a 2017 special election.

At the start of this election cycle, many pundits saw the Senate as massively difficult for the Democrats. It has largely been assumed that they will keep their majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate map looked much harder. It seemed unlikely that Democrats would be able to pick up seats in South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Kansas, or Georgia, considering that Trump won all of these states in 2016, and because in four of them, they will have to beat a Republican incumbent. 

Despite the clear difficulties the Democrats face, however, the news in the last few months regarding the Senate has been especially positive for them. Races that were considered long shots, such as Montana, South Carolina, and Iowa, now look more like tossups. In fact, FiveThirtyEight’s election forecast now has the Democrats favored to win the Senate, with its highest-probability projection predicting they will win 51 seats. Recent polling suggests they are likely to gain seats in Maine, Arizona, and Colorado while also protecting Gary Peters’s seat in Michigan. This trend suggests that a “blue wave” may be coming, which could give the Democrats control of the House, Senate, and presidency. Given the recent changes in Senate projections, I believe it is worth looking into the reasons why they are making Senate races competitive across the board.

While many factors have contributed to the recent surge in their Senate chances, I believe fundraising and enthusiasm play the largest roles. Democratic Senate challengers are raising money to an extent never seen before, which has forced the GOP to go on the defensive. Challenger Jaime Harrison in South Carolina raised a whopping $57 million in the third financial quarter, a colossal amount for a Senate race in a state which President Trump won with about 55 percent of the vote. In the North Carolina race, challenger Cal Cunningham raised $28.3 million in the third quarter, nearly quadrupling his $7.4 million in the previous quarter. In Iowa, a state Trump won with 51 percent of the vote (beating Hillary Clinton by almost 10 points),  Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield raised $28.7 million in the third quarter. 

It is worth considering that great fundraising does not always mean enthusiasm for a candidate. For example, Michael Bloomberg spent about $1 billion this year in his run for the Democratic presidential nomination, yet failed to win strong support. But the fundraising that is elevating the campaigns of Democratic Senate challengers appears to result more from genuine enthusiasm among voters. This is highlighted by the fact that the majority of donations to these candidates are small-dollar rather than corporate or corporate-related. For example, Cunningham’s campaign reported that more than 40,000 North Carolinians had contributed in the past three months, with 96 percent of the donations under $100. Similarly, in Iowa, Greenfield’s campaign reported that 95 percent of third-quarter contributions were $100 or less. 

These contributions highlight a genuine enthusiasm for Democratic candidates from voters, as even working-class families in large numbers are willing to give money in hopes of achieving a Senate majority. While some may argue that out-of-state contributions do not reflect enthusiasm from voters within the state, they certainly reflect an overall support for Democrats, also seen in Joe Biden’s substantial polling lead over Trump. In fact, the Biden campaign raised a record $383 million in the month of September, which shows that Democratic voters have been willing to support a Democratic agenda with their money. While the battle for the Senate initially looked difficult for the Democrats, they have plenty of reasons to be optimistic heading into this election. 

The Problem with the Early Primaries

Performing well in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary is vital to a presidential hopeful’s eventual success. Given that these states are the first in the primary cycle, candidates are forced to appeal to their voters. If a candidate struggles to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is seen as a sign that his or her campaign is doomed, that he or she has no hope of winning the nomination. Given these states’ importance, one would think they should be great representations of the demographics of the United States. After all, if the Democratic Party wants to find a candidate who can appeal to the masses, it would make sense to “test the waters” in states that accurately represent the voters which the nominee will have to sway in November. Iowa and New Hampshire don’t fit this bill. Both are incredibly white states, which causes candidates to appeal more to white voters, leaving the voices of minority voters left behind in the process.

In terms of demographics, New Hampshire and Iowa have the third and fifth highest percentages of white Americans, with 95 and 92.9 percent of the population respectively. Due to this, the concerns of minority voters in these states are essentially left behind, as candidates are forced to appeal to audiences in which at least nine out of ten people are white. If a candidate were to focus on issues that deeply affect people of color, such as unfair conviction rates for nonviolent drug offenders, his or her message would likely fall flat, given that these issues do not personally affect the majority of the audience. Not only is it morally wrong to put candidates in such a position, but it is a terrible way of choosing a candidate who will best appeal to the national electorate. If the Democrats want to win in battleground states with a more diverse population (such as North Carolina, which is only 68.5 percent white, or Florida, 75 percent white), they should force candidates to seriously address the needs of minority voters early in the primaries. Under the current format, only the candidates who successfully appealed to the incredibly white populations of Iowa and New Hampshire (whether they actually finished first there or not) can survive, and those who might have performed better in more diverse states later in the calendar are, in effect, dropped. 

To fix this issue, the Democrats could simply combine the current first four states--Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina--into one day. With this new schedule, candidates would have to appeal to a much more diverse audience. Nevada and South Carolina are both 66.2 percent white, and their greater diversity would force candidates to focus more on issues that affect minority voters. In addition, this would make the first primary much more geographically representative, since there would be one in each region on the same day: Midwest, Northeast, South, and West all having importance in helping to determine the nominee. It would not be unprecedented to have multiple states simultaneously: On Super Tuesday, which is March 3 this year, fourteen states will vote on the same day. That’s early as well, but under the current schedule, good performances in Iowa and New Hampshire tend to signal to Super Tuesday voters that a candidate actually has a shot at winning the nomination and is electable. If all of the first four states were to vote on the same day, the opinions of minority voters would probably have much greater influence in that next round of voting.

If the Democrats are serious about winning elections, they must rally more support from non-white voters. As evidence from 2016 shows, when minority voters don’t show up strongly enough at the polls (white voters turned out at 65.3 percent, black voters at 59.6 percent, and Hispanic voters at 47.6 percent), Republicans have a much greater chance of winning. This seems especially true for the coming election, in which President Trump’s base consists overwhelmingly of white voters. While it is too late to change the 2020 primary schedule, a future change to incorporate the voices of minority voters at an earlier stage could benefit the Democratic Party. By forcing candidates to consider the issues which especially affect minority voters, rather than requiring them to appeal to states which are over 92 percent white, the Democrats could successfully maneuver campaigns into a focus on the broad range of issues affecting voters as a whole, not simply those affecting mostly white Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire. For a party that needs racially diverse support to win presidential elections, it makes sense to more strongly prioritize minority voters’ concerns at the start of the primary cycle. 

Lee Carter and the Future of Democrats

On November 5, an electoral blue wave swept Virginia. The Democrats won both the House of Delegates and the state Senate, marking the first time in 20 years that they have controlled the lower house. This gives the Democratic Party full control of the state government, since the governor is Democrat Ralph Northam. 

While the result indicates that Virginia is becoming an increasingly blue state, it also carries serious policy implications. Republicans have blocked most major Democratic-led legislation in Virginia, including repeal of the “right-to-work” law, gun safety regulations, and raising the state’s minimum wage. For example, after the Virginia Beach shooting in May that claimed the lives of twelve people, Northam called a special legislative session to deal with gun violence. Republicans refused to address the issue and adjourned the session after 90 minutes, failing to consider a single bill. Under a Democratic majority, significant changes may be seen on that front and on other issues.

I found the campaign of Lee Carter, a Marine veteran and a self-proclaimed member of the Democratic Socialists of America, especially interesting. In 2017, Carter was elected to represent Virginia’s 50th House district, which had been represented by Republicans since 1982. After serving one term he was up for re-election, running against Republican challenger Ian Lovejoy, a city councilman. Carter faced numerous attack ads from conservatives and a website dedicated to attacking his character by calling him a “deadbeat.” But his reputation held strong on the left wing of the Democratic Party. He amassed a Twitter following of more than 53,000, and Senator Bernie Sanders traveled to Virginia to campaign for him on the night before the election. The attention paid off at the polls, as Carter won with 53.3 percent of the vote. 

Carter’s campaign demonstrated what it will take for Democrats to win in toss-up states that have been substantially affected by neoliberal policies and globalization. Despite being a vocal socialist, he focused on “kitchen table” issues and was able to show his character to working-class voters. He vocally supported policies such as ensuring universal health care coverage in Virginia, raising teacher pay, investing in renewable energy and ending fracking, and helping workers by repealing the right-to-work law that makes unionization harder and by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Despite being well to the left of the common window of policy discourse in America in some respects, Carter quickly became a political sensation, both in his district and online. His campaign, along with many in Virginia, showed the political world that it is not necessary for politicians to “run to the center” to win in battleground districts. As Carter tweeted: “Some of the strongest pro-worker voices in the VA House are my colleagues that flipped red seats in Prince William [County] in 2017. And we all won re-election … And I still hear centrists saying ‘you can't stand up for your values too much if you want to win swing seats.’ C’mon, y’all.” 

I think Lee Carter is entirely correct. Democrats should not be scared to show their true values. Working-class Americans are able to recognize when someone is fighting for them, and are increasingly rejecting the politicians of the past who sold out to corporate interests for campaign donations. I believe that Hillary Clinton couldn’t convince voters she would genuinely fight for them because she largely ignored the working class in the Rust Belt. Politicians such as Carter are demonstrating that even though they advocate certain policies deemed “radical” by mainstream media, the working class will support those who speak to the issues of its communities.

Looking toward 2020 and facing President Trump, Democrats should not be scared to stay true to their beliefs and advocate for the working class. Rather than conceding ground on issues such as universal health care and raising the minimum wage, they have the opportunity to win back the working class and regain their identity. For a party that currently struggles to sell its case to voters and relies too much on identity politics, staying true to liberal policies will signal to working-class Americans that the Democrats are on their side. When billionaires have a lower effective tax rate than teachers and mechanics (if we consider the taxes at all three levels of government, including payroll and sales taxes) and Trump’s tax cut has given so much to the wealthy, the Democratic Party has a great opportunity to win back the Rust Belt and other working communities. If the Democrats want to beat Trump in 2020, they must first look toward crucial states they lost in 2016 such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio. If the party can gain the trust of these industrial, working-class states, it will have a great shot at taking back the White House. 

The Debates Are Too Big

If you’ve been following the Democratic presidential debates, you have seen many different faces on the stage. In the first debate in June, twenty candidates made their cases to voters. This made sense, since it was so early in the primary process and they needed the opportunity to get their messages out to the public. But now, months later and with voters heading to the primary or caucus polls in less than 100 days in some states, there are still far too many candidates qualifying for the debates. At a crucial stage in the campaign, when voters should be given the chance to distinguish between the front-runners and the other presidential hopefuls, we still see candidates with no path to victory taking up valuable speaking time.

Currently, there are three main groups of Democratic candidates. First, there are the main front-runners, I would say those polling above fifteen percent: former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Then, three candidates who may have a path to victory, but only a slim one. In this category are Senator Kamala Harris, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Andrew Yang. The third group, who may as well drop out now and save their reputations and money, includes candidates such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Senator Cory Booker, and Senator Michael Bennet.

While I respect the struggling candidates’ right to continue their campaigns and hold on to a last glimmer of hope, the Democratic National Committee should absolutely put an end to these crowded debate stages. Twelve candidates took part in the October debates, all on one stage, and it was an absolute mess. Klobuchar, polling at 1 to 2 percent in most polls, was third in speaking time, speaking for a total of thirteen minutes and eighteen seconds. She was given more time than Sanders, Buttigieg, or Harris. Similarly, Beto O’Rourke spoke for thirteen minutes and nine seconds, coming in fourth in speaking time, time which should have been allowed to front-runners who are not on the edge of dropping out (as O’Rourke now has). These candidates cannot crack the top five in a single state’s polling, but the debate moderators ask them questions as if they were front-runners. They have been campaigning for almost a year now, and their messages still have not swayed voters in their favor. Yet for some reason, the DNC allows these candidates to claim speaking time, which clogs up the debates and prevents the meaningful discussion that the vast majority of voters care about. While I appreciate the fact that the DNC has raised the threshold requirements for the December debate, the November debate will still include Klobuchar and billionaire Steyer, who is able to make the stage only because he spent $47 million of his own money in early states to meet the requirements.

The debates could easily offer great insight into the differences between candidates. For example, a long discussion of the different health care plans offered by the Biden, Warren, and Sanders campaigns would be very valuable. Given that health care is the “top issue” for 36 percent of American voters, you would think the DNC would consider it necessary to allow these candidates to go into detail about their health care proposals, rather than forcing them to make quick statements in 60 seconds or less. With the one opportunity, the debates, that the Democrats have to showcase their front-runners together, it would make sense to get them to prove that their proposals are the best for the future of America. Instead, we are forced to sift through sets of thirteen minutes in which desperate, long-shot candidates say whatever must be said in order to pick up traction.

If these struggling candidates offered new ideas and proposals that could spark a conversation and move the direction of the party, I believe I would be more receptive to their continued participation in the debates. But aside from O’Rourke’s mandatory gun buyback proposal, I’ve yet to notice anything that is unique from the 0-to-2 percent candidates. They simply regurgitate the same talking points that we’ve heard for months, and go for “kill shot” segments in a desperate attempt to draw attention and raise their numbers in the polls. This does nothing productive for the party in terms of finding the right candidate to challenge President Trump, and simply takes time from what could be valuable discussions. 

The DNC needs to wake up and allow America to see a true discussion between the front-runners in this field. Rather than forcing us to watch a dozen candidates trying to make their cases, it should offer Americans what they deserve: a real debate of ideas between the ones who actually have a shot at facing Trump. With some of the states voting so soon, it is increasingly crucial to allow the main candidates to differentiate their campaigns from the others. If we reduce the number of voices on stage and give the front-runners a fair amount of time to explain their stances and proposals, it will give voters a much clearer picture as they decide who should be the Democratic nominee in 2020. 

The Dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex

In today’s polarized American political process, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans are deadlocked on every topic. What they can agree on, however, is the defense budget. When it comes to issues such as infrastructure, health care, raising wages, and more, the question we often hear is: “How can we pay for that?” Yet each year, both sides of the congressional aisle vote for military budget increases with little hesitation. Our one area of bipartisanship is these increasingly reckless amounts of money given to our military.

U.S. defense spending is astonishingly wasteful. In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, which mandated that all federal agencies be audited regularly. However, the Pentagon was not audited until November of 2018. The result? As then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said: “We failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it.” In true Pentagon fashion, the audit cost a grand total of $972 million. 

Despite the fact that we’re already spending more on our military than the next ten nations combined (six of which are our close allies, including Britain and France), President Trump sent Congress a request in March for a defense budget of $750 billion for the 2020 fiscal year. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything – and more,” he tweeted the previous month. Republicans in the House of Representatives agreed with Trump, pushing for the full $750 billion. In July, the House Democrats voted to appropriate $733 billion for the 2020 defense budget. In other words, on the largest piece of discretionary spending in the federal budget (which accounts for more than half), Democrats and Republicans were divided by a mere 2.3 percent. 

In his farewell address to the American people, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He said: “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions … yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex . . . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” Eisenhower, the same man who had served as the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, saw the dangers of coupling our military with our democratic processes. He recognized that when military influence affects our economic and political systems, it can lead to inflated military spending and excessive military power. Now, almost 60 years later, Eisenhower’s nightmare is quite real. In 2019, all 50 states have defense industry jobs. This is no accident, but a matter of politics. As a result, nearly all members of Congress are incredibly hesitant to cut back (and/or oppose growth in) military spending, due to the political ramifications of cuts in their constituencies. They recognize that when military spending increases, it can lead to new defense-related jobs, and even newly-located industries, in their districts and states. Our economy is so heavily intertwined with the military-industrial complex that if we were ever to cut back on military spending, a significant number of Americans would be out of work. Instead, we simply push the issue further down the road, and cut from other government spending or borrow unsustainably.

The establishment and growth of the military-industrial complex in America is a grave development. Since the 1990s, the United States has served as the world’s largest weapons exporter, with some exported weapons going to less-than-savory actors. Saudi Arabia is our largest arms partner; the U.S. signed an arms deal worth an advertised $110 billion with the country in 2018. These weapons, in turn, have been used recklessly in Saudi Arabia’s conflicts. Horrifically, a 2018 Saudi attack on a school bus in Yemen that killed 29 children was carried out with an American-made bomb. The size of our military-industrial complex should not be allowed to preclude us from controlling our arms exports tightly.

Minimizing our reliance on the defense industry requires us to retool our economy. Much-needed investments in domestic infrastructure and clean energy sources could accomplish this. But the significant influence our defense sector wields in our politics makes change difficult. In 2006, more than a quarter of Congress held shares in major defense contractors, and the CEOs of these contractors regularly contribute to political campaigns. In the 2012 cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with the defense sector gave more than $27 million for campaign purposes. Because of their essential status in our economy (due to the continuous increases in defense spending) and their financial connections to our politicians, defense contractors are highly resistant to political change. Until we elect representatives who are willing to suffer the short-term political consequences of reducing such spending, we should expect the cycle of increased defense spending and cuts to other programs, or rising national debt, to continue.