The Obamas showed Democrats how to bridge the race gap between left and center voters
Sen. Bernie Sanders' entry into the 2020 presidential race this week highlights the Democrats' perpetual dilemma: how to find a presidential candidate who can satisfy their leftist base in the primaries and then appeal to more centrist voters in the November 2020 general election.
The main sticking point remains the divide between the Democratic left and other voters over race, which President Donald Trump has exacerbated. Trump has radicalized progressive opinion on this issue, making it more liberal than it was previously and, ominously, pushing it further from the values held by other Americans.
The ideological trajectory of the Democratic left, however, is at odds with the need for Democratic candidates to build coalitions that can win elections. A large-scale national survey, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” found a disquieting divergence between “progressive activists” and the rest of the country on race. While 60 percent of progressive activists believe that race should be considered in college admissions, 85 percent of Americans disagreed and thought race should not be taken into account.
Read more commentary:
How Bernie Sanders and Democrats can avoid the 2016 mistakes that gave us Trump
Julian Castro's presidential candidacy is a litmus test. Does US love Latinos or not?
Democrats should pair off now. It'll raise the odds of a strong 2020 presidential ticket.
Another large-scale survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that white liberals have become so radical, they are now even more likely to attribute racial inequality to discrimination than blacks.
The leftward drift of progressives could be justified as an appropriate response to Trump’s reactionary policies, but it also pushes them further from the values held by most Americans. Progressives threaten to enter escape velocity, to escape the earth’s gravitational pull and enter the gloom of deep space and smug political irrelevance.
Progressive Democratic presidential aspirants need to think creatively and strategically about this challenge: How can they form coalitions between liberal Democrats and other voters over what has become a wider ideological divide over race? How can they appeal to the base they need to win primaries as well as to the other Americans they need to win general elections?
The Obamas showed the path forward
The best way for Democratic candidates to approach this dilemma is to support policies that entail what the political scientist Theda Skocpol described as targeting within universalism. They should advocate polices that are neutral with regards to race, that are universal, but that target their benefits disproportionately to blacks and other minorities. Two examples from Barack and Michelle Obama show how this can be done.
Obamacare offered health insurance to those who could not afford it. This policy was racially neutral on its face, but not in its impact. A disproportionate number of uninsured were minorities, and they benefited disproportionately from Obamacare. Higher take-up rates for minorities under Obamacare reduced the disparity in health insurance coverage nationwide between minorities and whites.
Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity is another example. It was designed to address the problem of nearly 14 million American children suffering from obesity. But obesity rates are 50 percent higher for black children and 85 percent higher for Hispanic kids than they are for whites. Minorities benefited disproportionately from the government’s efforts to encourage kids to exercise more and eat healthier foods to reduce the incidence of childhood obesity.
Help the needy by 'not talking about them'
Social policy advocates have long argued the benefits of universal over targeted programs. Targeted programs to marginalized groups do not generate the political support needed to sustain them. Middle-class people do not want to pay taxes to support programs that don’t include them, regardless of the benefits the poor may derive from such programs. Similarly, whites are reluctant to support race-based programs that exclude them or are perceived as coming at their expense, regardless of the historical justification for them.
The political scientist Hugh Heclo once advised that the best way to help the poor was by “not talking about them.” He wasn’t suggesting that advocates ignore the poor, but that when they design policies to assist the poor, they shouldn't be about them. We need to think about race in the same way.
This is a big ask. Targeted, race-based programs are seductive because they offer validation to marginalized groups. But they also may offer little of real value except symbolic recognition. Targeted, race-based policies also meet the needs of those whose business models or careers depend on fueling racial grievance and promoting black or Hispanic identity. Disregarding their self-interested groans of being ignored and snubbed will take forbearance and courage.
The widening gap between the left and the rest of the country over racial issues makes building majority coalitions harder at the very moment they have never been more necessary for progressives. Democratic presidential aspirants are all going to encounter this tension. Policies that advocate targeting within universalism will help them navigate this treacherous terrain.
Alan Draper is the Michael W. Ranger and Virginia R. Ranger Professor of Government at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The Obamas showed Democrats how to bridge the race gap between left and center voters
