Intersectionality in Racial Justice and Immigration Reform

Her stances on racial issues have been mixed. Welfare reform which her husband signed into law on its third iteration did predominantly affect people of color and prison reform / tough on crime measures of the 1990s have been agreed to have been a mistake on both sides of the aisle. Comments on the 1999 Elian Gonzalez matter were troubling from an immigration standpoint but in keeping with her work in children’s rights. Sometimes her own narrative overstates the significance of anecdotes on racial activism from her childhood or co-sponsorships of token legislation. However, I think Sanders does the same in the interest of crafting a narrative.

Sanders marched on the South, Clinton worked within the legal system to fight for migrant workers, but as with gay lib, neither of them are/were major in the civil rights movements. Both of them were, and still to some degree are, activists.

But like I think she clearly shows that she’s trying now, working LGBT rights into her stump speech, meeting with Black Lives Matters activists, And more importantly, than listening, I feel that Hillary Clinton is adapting her message — much more than Bernie Sanders who still has a tendency to refer to black people as “the blacks” and offer an “all wallets matter” view on income inequality.

Hillary is not perfect on race, but she’s trying, and you can see the progress. In 2008, she had a 75% voting record with the ACLU (up from 60% in 2006) which supports a mixed record, but a forward progress. It’s a 96% from the NAACP suggesting pro-affirmative action stances. On Latinx issues, she has an 8% voting record from US Border Control which suggests fairly strongly supporting open borders and a 95% rating from the Council of La Raza.

Historically, her biggest successes on racial issues are, perhaps as expected, in child & family issues and in health care. In the Senate, Clinton has advocated for expansion of SCHIP to illegal immigrants and much of her work with the Clinton foundation has been based in equalizing educational opportunity to poor black students, or children from poor or households where English was not a primary language.

To me, the largest difference between Clinton and Sanders’ policies on racial justice comes down to the following quote

Racial inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. We need to address both. — Hillary Clinton

The Clinton campaign does not send a message that “her platform is best for everyone, if you just understood it better” and she doesn’t claim that it’s a one-sized-fits all solution, adapting her economic, environmental, and LGBT policies to accommodate the different challenges faced by people of color. Sanders’ racial justice page reads very similar to his economic policy page, suggesting that he feels fixing the economy will fix racial disparities on its own. It’s far less intersectional and lacks nuance.

Media Portrayal and What Not to Wear

I have big trouble with the “liar” narrative built up around her because of the historical campaign to discredit, villify, and trivialize her accomplishments. And don’t think she’s intrinsically more or less dishonest than any other politician, more cautious, yes, but she’s shown to be equally if not more honest than Sanders and any Republican running.

But I do think she’s unfairly portrayed.

As a young lawyer up until today, Hillary has been excoriated by the right as supporting a radical antifamily and feminist agenda. Her 1973 work insisting children be treated as citizens rather with rights outside of their parents was interpreted by conservatives as attempting to undermine the nuclear family, as was her 1996 book on her vision for children, It Takes a Village. Clinton has been frequently called secretly gay if not a man (because no real woman could be ambitious and intelligent) and compared to Lady MacBeth in dozens of articles before Bill had even been sworn in — when all that was known about her was her work with child and family services and the ABA. They saw an intelligent woman as a threat and have never revisited that narrative. Even now she’s framed by the right as a dangerous extremist for her insistence on women’s rights to birth control, family planning, and abortion.

But to the left, she’s not and will never be good enough.

And maybe her feminism’s not perfect. It’s tinged with the second wave she’s come up in and sometimes she struggles to meet third or fourth wave demands for intersectionality. She’s never going to be a revolutionary in the vein of Audre Lorde, but failure to be a radical feminist does not equate to failure as a feminist and the public and populist nature of a presidential candidate necessitates some degree of centrism in politics.

Dr. King had been leading a movement. But Dr. King understood that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That’s why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That’s why he was there when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Does he deserve the lion’s share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system. — Meet the Press, Jan 2008

Hillary believes in working within the systems, and is campaigning to bring feminism to a nation that really struggles with feminism even when Beyonce does it. She’s not just pitching to radical feminists (and I don’t think she is a radical feminist strictly speaking), but it’s disingenuous to call her a bad feminist.

She’s a transnational feminist, through her work as Secretary of State campaigning for women’s issues in global politics; she’s a socialist feminist, though not in the same sense as Bernie Sanders is a socialist, but in her pushes to legally empower, grant access to healthcare, and provide for impoverished women. I think she’s even trying for intersectional feminism based on her recent overtures to the African American and Latino communities. But she’s working for change within the system.

And even as a woman in politics, she has a hell of a lot of privilege that allows her to do this. But it’s worked for her — really well. I think if anyone can make a case for “dismantling the Master’s house with the Master’s tools,” it’s Hillary Clinton.

But if she’s moderate, male privilege has a lot to do with Sanders having the ability to speak and live as radically as he does when Clinton has been crucified for 25 years for far less, and I think because of that backlash, she’s done a lot of course correcting to her public persona. But I think looking at her record, she’s not done so in her personal beliefs. As as Michelle Goldberg said in the Slate piece:

She’s now struggling to convince voters that she is the person she was once widely assumed to be.

And while that doesn’t dismiss concerns of her feminism being too moderate, it does explain some of how it came about, why she’s built this wall around herself, and why she can’t be and isn’t as vocally radical as a lot online feminists who don’t answer to voters are, but in her case, I think she has an internationally proven record of speaking and acting up for women across the globe and across class lines. I feel she’s making a solid effort on race and LGBTQ issues. And I’m with her.

Corporate Shill?

I will be upfront that economic analysis of Clinton’s versus Sanders’ plans is ot my strength, however, while criticism of Clinton frequently takes the form of criticizing her involvement with business, I figured I would link to relevant legislation Clinton introduced during her 8 years on the Senate that are anti-business, pro-accountability and transparency, and pro-worker or -student.

This is not comprehensive by any means, but I found evidence of Clinton introducing bills suggesting that her view is more nuanced. These bills supported:

So Why Clinton?

I’ve heard the argument “We don’t need another Clinton.” I feel that would have been a fairer assessment in 2008 when she ran off her experience as a lawyer and junior Senator, but also heavily on her experience as FLOTUS. At this point, Hillary Clinton is an accomplished stateswoman with her own voice, and accomplishments that rival, if not surpass, her husband’s. Bill is almost an afterthought to the Clinton campaign at this point and if anything at this point, Hillary Clinton’s another Obama (but it’s also possible she’s her own political mind.)

I think it’s important to analyze a candidate’s history, but think it’s dangerous for them to rest entirely on that. Analysis of the viability, inclusivity, and adaptability of current policies is also critical to selecting a candidate for President and I feel in that regard, Clinton greatly exceeds Sanders.

Her women’s rights page is similar to Sanders’. However hers includes violence against women which feels a very important omission from Sanders’. Clinton goes a step further to have a page on campus sexual assault. On womens’ issues, Clinton is stronger both in record and on policy.

from Sanders’. Clinton goes a step further to have a page on campus sexual assault. Her LGBT Issues page is thoughtful and specific , mentioning PrEP, sexuality and gender identity in non-discrimination and hate crime ordinances, streamlining changes to identification papers for trans individuals, and protections for minors against homelessness and conversion therapy, and discrimination at school compared to Sanders’ which is very vague. It reads that he would “support (good) policies”, and “oppose (bad) ones.” On LGBT issues, Clinton has a similar record, greater accomplishments, and stronger policy.

, mentioning PrEP, sexuality and gender identity in non-discrimination and hate crime ordinances, streamlining changes to identification papers for trans individuals, and protections for minors against homelessness and conversion therapy, and discrimination at school compared to Sanders’ which is very vague. It reads that he would “support (good) policies”, and “oppose (bad) ones.” On racial justice, Clinton has one page. Until recently, Sanders had one page as well. In recent weeks he has added policy pages for native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans. Though stances for Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans largely rehash his environmental and economic policies, his Native American page is pretty impressive and he advocates for Puerto Rican statehood.

My consistent criticism of Sanders’ racial platform has been that he takes his economic or environmental policy and copies it over without factoring in the differences race might have on the experience of economic disparity, policing, and other realms. These new pages, don’t entirely fix that, but suggest he’s finally showing some growth on racial issues, which by and large, is a positive. Given that. Sanders has a slightly stronger record owing to votes against welfare reform, though complicated by votes for Clinton era Tough on Crime initiatives and anti-immigration votes and more extensive policies. However, Clinton’s policies are more intersectional and may serve non-white women and children more extensively than Sanders’. Though I would hesitate to call either candidate powerhouses of racial justice.

There are certainly reasons to criticize her. She’s less isolationist than Sanders both financially and militarily. She recognizes the role that Wall Street and investment plays in the economy, retirement, and savings of many Americans which can be dissatisfying to an OWS narrative and she doesn’t go as far as Bernie Sanders on issues like taxation or free college, but Hillary is consistently rated highly in middle class protections by the drum major institute.

There are also valid reasons to criticize her record, any career politician has problems, but what I have tried to show with this report is I don’t think there is a basis to call her anything but comparable or exceeding Sanders. More Attacks tend to be much more personal than political with regards to Hillary.

I think discourse on what we like about our candidates goes much farther than suggesting people supporting the other candidate are stupid, not true scotsmen, or traitors to political ideologies, whether from Clinton Supporters like Gloria Steinem who claim feminists must support Hillary, or Sanders supporters who claim that African Americans would totally support Sanders if they were smarter or not brainwashed.

And ultimately, we’re going to have to support the Democratic nominee, it does us more good to focus on what we like about our candidate and than why we dislike the other. If someone would like to write the counterpoint to this essay, a positive, candidate-focused analysis of Bernie Sanders’ history, successes, and policies for women, LGBTQ Americans, and people of color, I’d happily share that reciprocally.