My friend Danielle drove up from Brooklyn so that we could walk in the park, just entering peak-leaf season. Like everyone else, we discussed the elections. We didn't feel optimistic, exactly, but inspired by the beautiful foliage, we allowed ourselves the opportunity to consider a Democratic win of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. It was an exhilarating but daunting proposition. Where, exactly, should they start?
There was the Supreme Court, of course, and the federal judiciary, which has become infested with lifelong Republican appointees, but there was also health care (in terms of the pandemic and beyond); campaign finance; the ongoing marginalization of and systemic violence toward Black Americans and other ethnic minorities, women, and nonheterosexuals; the environment (both in terms of pollution and climate change); the decimated labor movement; the militarization of the police; the militarization of the military; the tax system; finance (particularly of public infrastructure, with a focus on mass transit); public schools; unhealthy market power in any number of industries (but especially Big Tech); and probably twenty or thirty other things that need a lot of attention before we as a country can legitimately describe ourselves as a functional democracy, not to mention a 'land of opportunity.'
It was a formidable to-do list that made us wonder: Had the Democratic Party accomplished *anything* over the past fifty years? The ACA was hanging on by a thread, but once that was gone -- as it surely will be, once the Supreme Court rules on it again next month -- there doesn't seem to be much on their resume beyond meek objection and passive resistance. The Republicans, meanwhile, have with much greater focus managed to dismantle just about everything good that the post-New Deal government has ever done, and are eager to continue the work if they manage to hold any kind of legislative or executive power.
INTERMISSION
It was with this idea in mind that we agreed that, before Democrats undertake any other initiative, they need to focus on the right to vote, because what should be an open door for every citizen has increasingly started to feel like a maze. This is by design of course; Republicans understand that, if they are to protect their primary interest -- allowing white people to hoard as much property and wealth as possible -- they can't permit a majority of citizens to vote, because this same majority understands that society, in order to function, requires a government, which in turn requires progressive funding (i.e., the wealthy pay a greater percentage than the non-wealthy, with the understanding that their wealth is made possible only because of the existence of a democratic government). A government that represents this majority will provide health care and promote environmental and economic measures and all sorts of other things that will allow its people to live comfortably and securely and to envision a future that is not the dystopian hellscape in which we now find ourselves. In short, Democrats must make it *easy* to vote (and not just to register): they must fund the process and eliminate the kinds of draconian ID and signature requirements that now effectively function as a poll tax in many states. There must be a sufficient number of polling stations so that people don't have to travel hours or wait more than a few minutes in line to vote. They must recognize statehood for Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and other places where US citizens live but have no representation in the federal government. Once these voting measures are accomplished -- it should take a day or so with the Democrats in full control -- they can turn their attention to everything else, which will follow naturally.
As we concluded this action plan, we wondered why the Democratic Party hadn't done more in this regard when they had the chance. To ask this question, of course, is to immediately grasp the answer, which is that the Democratic leadership has always been cautious about the vote: it's been a 'lip-service' issue more than a 'let's-get-to-work' issue. They want enough people to vote so that they can remain in power, but they don't want too many people to vote, because Democratic party leaders are only slightly less repulsed than Republicans by the tendency of a majority to impose fair taxation and health care and all the other things that might spread the wealth out in the interests of creating an equitable country. But the risks of this 'just enough' strategy are more apparent than ever. Over the last four years, we've now witnessed what happens when it's no longer possible for Democrats to thread the needle; and they -- like the rest of the country -- are on the verge of complete collapse.
If they win in November, will Democrats finally work to expand the vote with the same zeal that the Republicans have worked to restrict it? Let's hope that they have the good fortune to face this choice, and the good sense to make the right decision.
Comments