Today’s Edition: What’s at stake.

November 9, 2021

          We are one year away from Election Day 2022. A reader sent a note reminding me of what is at stake:

          The 2022 midterm elections are exactly one year from today! We will be electing all 435 Representatives in the House and 34 U.S. Senators, 36 governors, 30 lieutenant governors, 30 state attorneys general, 26 secretaries of state, and 229 state executive officers across 43 states.

          That is a lot—but not overwhelming. There are 45 million registered Democrats in the U.S. (compared to 33 million registered Republicans). There are more than enough of us to support and fund the Democratic candidates in every election listed above. We must support candidates up-and-down the ballot and must encourage every eligible voter to show up at the polls. When more people vote, more Democrats win (on average). So, let me be straightforward (and I am looking at you when I say this), if you are not currently engaged in some form of activism for 2022, you must become so in the next few weeks. Too much is at stake.

          The losses in Virginia continue to generate introspection, anxiety, and fearmongering among party leaders, voters, and journalists. The Virginia losses obscured good news everywhere else. If you want a broader perspective, read Rebecca Solnit’s essay in The Guardian, “Why do the media keep saying this election was a loss for Democrats? It wasn’t.” Solnit catalogs the impressive wins by progressive and moderate Democrats at the state and local level outside Virginia. Check out the list; it will make you feel more confident and hopeful about 2022. But those Democratic victories are ignored by the media. Solnit describes the institutional media bias in favor of the GOP as follows:

          Pretty much anything that happens to the Democrats is a sign that they’re weak and losing and should be worried, according to the storylines into which mainstream media tend to stuff news. Pretty much nothing, including losing, seems to signify that the Republicans are losers.

          Solnit is correct. The handwringing and tut-tutting in the major media outlets over the Virginia losses is commentary reserved for Democrats. When Republicans lose, the narrative is about Trump’s grip on the party, or the loyalty of the GOP base, or the unexpectedly strong showing by the GOP candidate (as in New Jersey). But the asymmetrical media coverage is a feature of the system, so we can’t bemoan it. But we should darn sure not repeat it or let the skewed coverage affect our outlook. Democrats made significant gains last week—gains that run counter to the doomsday narratives dominating the media. Don’t overlook those gains or let the doomsday narratives dissuade you from engaging in the fight for 2022. Too much is at stake.

Did “Critical Race Theory” cause the losses in Virginia?

          An emerging narrative over the last few days is that Democrats lost in Virginia because they are “too woke” for parents of school children. An essay by Andrew Sullivan is being widely cited in support of this proposition. See “The Woke Meet Their Match: Parents” as excerpted in “Why Evolution Is True.” In an earlier edition of the newsletter, I was dismissive of the claim by Republicans that Critical Race Theory was part of the curriculum planning in Virginia—or anywhere in primary or secondary education in the U.S. But Sullivan’s piece cites to a 2015 presentation to the Virginia Department of Education (by an outside consultant) about student discipline that states, “Embrace Critical Race Theory / Engage in race-conscious teaching and learning.” That document was touted by Youngkin in attack ads in the Virginia governor’s race.

          The presentation to the Virginia DOE certainly uses the phrase “Critical Race Theory,” but so far as I can tell, that is the beginning and end of the discussion of CRT in that presentation. The remainder of the presentation focuses on the disparate suspension rates between White students and Black students. (Black students are 4.5 times more likely to be suspended than White students in Virginia schools—a disparity that deserves serious discussion.) Sullivan also asserts that another Virginia DOE document “explicitly endorsed critical race theory.” It does not. Read the memo for yourself. (It does include a book on Critical Race Theory in its bibliography.) The Virginia DOE did say, “As education leaders – we have the opportunity and an obligation – to facilitate meaningful dialogue on racism and bigotry with our students, staff, and school communities.” If that is Critical Race Theory or “being woke,” then we need more of it, not less.

          I am not attempting to settle the debate over CRT—and by implication, whether it is a fair, meaningful, or comprehensible criticism that Democrats are “too woke.” But I am saying that the issue is more complex and nuanced than I suggested earlier—and far more complex and nuanced than Glenn Youngkin claimed in his campaign. As noted in yesterday’s newsletter (Mark Bergman’s analysis), voters in Virginia were more interested in the economy than in education (and by implication, CRT in schools).  So, before telling Democrats that they are too “woke” for their own good (whatever that means), it is always helpful to acknowledge that facts are usually more complicated, nuanced, and pesky than the media narrative asserts.

          As before, I accept at face value reader reports from Virginia that McAuliffe’s messaging and responses to attack ads on Critical Race Theory were ineffective and counterproductive. A more skillful and thoughtful response on that issue may have been enough to overcome the narrow margin of defeat for McAuliffe. That possibility certainly deserves consideration and, if necessary, adjustments in future races.

Reader response to list of suggested Democratic Senate candidates for 2022.

          In response to the list of recommended Democratic Senate candidates for 2022 in yesterday’s newsletter, I received two consistent responses. The first was from highly regarded Democratic organizing groups that counseled against donating to Democratic candidates in primaries. That is the position of the Democratic Party, which understandably doesn’t want to be in the position of telling Democratic voters which candidate to select for the general election. The activist groups who wrote to me said that Democrats should focus on organizing during primaries and defer donating until general elections. That advice comes from organizations that are doing the hard work of promoting Democratic candidates across the country every day, so their advice deserves serious consideration.  

          But whether that advice is responsive to the needs of anxious Democrats who want to “do something now” is a question I will leave up to the readers. As a personal observation, I note that if Democrats want representatives in Congress who reflect their views, the best time to back candidates is in the primaries. As Senator Joe Manchin said, if progressives want more progressive legislation, “They should elect more liberals.” The same principle applies for moderates. And if ordinary voters are not donating during primaries, who is? PACs? Corporations?

          I received several comments about the recommendation of John Fetterman in the Pennsylvania race for U.S. Senate. Two readers said that Rep. Conor Lamb was the better choice, and one reader said that Emily’s List was her preferred source for recommendations. (Emily’s List is supporting Val Arkoosh in Pennsylvania.) Obviously, people should support candidates they believe in, but electability is also a factor to consider. Fetterman won his race for Lieutenant Governor in 2018 by 850,000 votes (with 58% of the vote). Fetterman currently leads the Democratic field with 27% support, while Lamb is at 17% and Arkoosh is at 4%. Fetterman has raised $9.2 million, while Lamb has raised $2.6 million and Arkoosh has raised $2 million.  The Pennsylvania primary is six months away (May 15, 2022). I suspect that Len’s recommendation of Fetterman takes into account the above factors.

Did the effort to “defund the police” in Oakland contribute to the killing of a toddler?

          In a tragic development, a toddler was killed in crossfire on Interstate 880 in Oakland, California. The president of the Oakland Police union issued a statement saying that the killing was the “sad reality . . . created by the ‘Defund The Police” majority on the City Council.” See “‘Oakland’s sad reality’ result of defunding police, POA union says | KRON4.” We should expect to see the statement by the union president repeated endlessly on social media and the right-wing media.

          But the City Council did not “defund the police” in Oakland. Instead, it raised the budget for the Oakland Police from $635 million spent in the last two years to $674 million for the next two years—a $39 million increase. See Oaklandside, “Oakland’s new budget doesn’t ‘defund’ the police.”

          The killing of the toddler was tragic. Misrepresenting the facts about the cause of the killing for political purposes is inexcusable and heinous.

Concluding Thoughts.  

          In response to my suggestion for individual contributions to Senate candidates, I heard from organizations that aggregate money and deploy it strategically on behalf of candidates and issues. Organizations like It Starts Today raise money in key races in state legislatures, Congress, and presidential elections, leveraging the research and knowledge of experts. Such organizations are also a good way to make smart and effective donations. If you can donate to candidates and causes, you should do so in whatever way is comfortable for you. My suggestion was intended to address the anger of Democrats who felt that their donations to organizations were not effective in the Virginia race.

          But enough about money. It is equally important that those involved in the fight for 2022 feel supported and energized by others who are equally committed. Organizations like Indivisible and Sister District bring volunteers together for collective action. If you can, join with fellow Americans to help defend democracy in 2022.  Whatever you do, don’t sit on the sidelines. Too much is at stake.

          Talk to you tomorrow!