Setting the Record Straight

The ultimate strategy for progressives

Stung by recent election defeats at the national level and mortified at the disastrous policy results that have ensued, many progressives are thinking a lot these days about what it will take to recapture the momentum in American politics. The current contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is, in some ways, a microcosm of this broader internal debate.

Progressives and their competing presidential candidates are mostly agreed on the policy results they want: a less bellicose foreign policy, a commitment to reversing the world environmental crisis, a fairer and healthier economy, a renewed dedication to human rights and international law. The only question, it seems, is how to best sell this message to the American people. Should they opt for the Illinois senator’s soaring rhetoric of hope and change or the former First Lady’s combative pragmatism?      

Here in North Carolina, forward-thinking politicians and policy advocates are wrestling with similar questions. How do we build a healthier, more humane, more unified state – especially when the forces of reaction and self-interest seem so entrenched and intransigent? Is it a matter of espousing a courageous vision and mastering new linguistic and rhetorical skills to persuade our adversaries? Or is it simply recognizing the fact that change is incremental and will require all kinds of tough-minded compromises and deal making? Do we devote our attention to demanding health care for all or the adoption of a modest expansion of the CHIP children’s health insurance program? Immediate abolition of the death penalty or a modest amendment like the Racial Justice Act that would make the application of capital punishment incrementally more equitable?

Facts over tactics

Without belittling the importance of this debate–especially when it comes to the unavoidably practical decisions of choosing between the candidates seeking high office or setting next year’s legislative agenda—it is important that progressives avoid allowing it to absorb too much of their time and energy. Often, rank and file activists and advocates would do well to worry less about tactics and remember that no tool is ultimately more effective in promoting the causes of social, political, environmental and economic justice than plain, old, simple facts. Seeking and speaking the truth (however artfully or in-artfully accomplished) ought to remain the primary focus.   

A good illustration of this reality took place recently at a community forum held in North Raleigh by the Catholic Community of St. Francis of Assisi. The event was sponsored by a special church project known as the Franciscan Coalition for Justice and Peace. Billed by its hosts as a “District Dialogue,” the event featured three Wake County state legislators, Senator Neal Hunt and Representatives Ty Harrell and Marilyn Avila , discussing four topics of great importance: immigration, healthcare, the death penalty and the environment/climate change. It was attended by a large and engaged audience    

During the course of the two-hour event, each of the three lawmakers offered up his or her take on such varied and specific issues as the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, a bill that seeks to end racial discrimination in the use of the death penalty, access to community colleges and universities by undocumented immigrants and North Carolina’s role in combating the global environmental crisis.

The facts according to…

Though very different in their perspectives, each of the lawmakers seemed to speak from the heart and sought, for the most part, to support his or her position with their personal understanding of “facts.” (One notable exception to this occurred when Representative Avila defended her strong support of the death penalty by claiming that it was byproduct of her personal religious faith and the dictates of Genesis and other Old Testament passages.) Even she, however, attempted to justify her opposition to the Racial Justice Act by arguing that the group of men executed by North Carolina over the past few decades was fairly “representative” of the racial make-up of the state.   

Representative Harrell (whose positions were clearly the most in sync with the sponsors of the event) spoke strongly in favor of opening up America’s borders to a dramatic increase in legal immigration. He argued convincingly that North Carolina will be wasting the effort and resources it puts into providing K-12 education to undocumented children (something the Supreme Court has ruled is constitutionally mandated) if it then turns around and attempts to deport successful young immigrant graduates or consign them to low wage, low skill employment. Harrell said he favors the current state policy of charging these students out-of-state tuition rates – a position that was actually endorsed by Avila.

Senator Hunt, in contrast, said that he would deny undocumented students admission to community colleges and universities – even if they were willing to pay out-of-state tuition. According to the senator, such admissions will work to deny admission to lawfully present citizens.

Avila, who has spent several years working for the far right John Locke Foundation, also sought to cast doubts on the very notion of global warming by citing her own experience as a “scientist” (she has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and worked several years in the textile business) and arguing that there was not true scientific consensus on the matter.

Hunt, in contrast, cited his experience as a developer who practiced “green” building practices in describing his support of strong environmental regulations – at least when it comes to protecting streams and preserving trees.

The power of truth

The point of describing some of the positions taken by the lawmakers is not to address them on the merits, but to show that in most policy debates, the “facts” remain an enormously powerful and, often, underutilized tool.

At one point, for example, a member of the audience asked the panel why, in considering public solutions to the healthcare crisis, so little attention is given to successful public systems like the one in France – a country that bests the U.S. in terms of health outcomes and costs without any falloff in service quality. Neither Hunt nor Avila, who had used most of their time on the subject to attack public solutions for healthcare, had any response – except to opine that public healthcare might be the source of weaknesses in the French economy.  

At another point, neither Hunt nor Avila could muster any real response when asked about the fairness of North Carolina’s penchant for imposing the death penalty in a more or less haphazard way from county to county – depending upon the vagaries and predilections of prosecutors and juries. About the only response Avila could come up with was that this was the kind of “luck of the draw” that convicted murderers ought to expect.

In contrast, a question on the drought – a subject about which, given the tremendous ongoing media coverage, none of three could avoid being fairly knowledgeable – each spoke strongly in favor of creative and aggressive public solutions to promote the common good.

Similarly, when confronted with the question of whether it is truly realistic to deport millions of immigrants, none of the three lawmakers (even Sen. Hunt) thought it would be possible.

Going forward

In short, as is often the case, lawmakers are a lot like the rest of the general public. Their depth of knowledge varies greatly from subject to subject. And while scores of other factors (political philosophy, religious beliefs, prejudices, etc…) play an important role, there is, in the long run, no substitute for giving them the facts over and over.

Most people will, when confronted repeatedly with the truth – be it an empty reservoir, a receding shoreline, an innocent child in need of education or healthcare or even a person receiving unjust treatment on death row, find it hard, over time, to stand in the way of progress. One need look no further than the burgeoning environmental movement amongst conservative Christians or, indeed, the competition of a white woman and a black man for the nomination of the Democratic party to see the potential for such progress.

All of which tends to demonstrate why modern progressives ought not to get too bogged down in worrying about how their message is delivered or who delivers it. In the long run, the facts can and will prevail if only committed people are there to unearth and deliver them.   

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm and is filed under Setting the Record Straight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.