OurFuture.org Blogs: Sandra Hinson

A Supreme Setback for Voting Rights

Sandra Hinson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:26:00 -0700

April 28, 2008. Today the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law. On this same day, the New York Times ran an article about ongoing voter suppression tactics in Florida. These two stories are very much related. Each represents a triumph for conservatives who have used allegations of voter fraud to push measures that disenfranchise the most marginalized members of our society. To reverse this assaut on voting rights, we need a long-term democracy agenda.

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that requiring photo identification at polling places is not, on its face, unconstitutional. The majority argued that, while the law does place some burden on voters, its overall burden is “minimal and justified” because the state has a “valid interest” in deterring fraud. The dissenting justices argued that the Indiana law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

The law in question, which was passed by Indiana’s Republican-controlled Legislature in 2005, has nothing to do with actual voter fraud. Indiana has no recent cases of voter fraud. This and similar voter ID laws around the country are part of a well-coordinated campaign to subvert meaningful voting rights reforms. Conservative efforts began in earnest after the 2000 presidential election. In the face of overwhelming evidence of voter suppression, moderate and liberal civic leaders and lawmakers began calling for reform. These efforts came together in the form of the federal ‘Help America Vote Act (HAVA),’ which aimed to set up a uniform guide for voter registration. Republicans in Congress made sure the bill focused more on a non-existent problem, voter fraud, than on the very real problem of ballot access. The version of HAVA that passed in 2002 actually opened the door for states to adopt more restrictive measures. Conservatives succeeded in redirecting the conversation away from voter suppression to ‘ballot integrity,’ which is their ‘double speak’ for voter fraud. [See my April 9 blog for more details on the conservative war on voting rights at grassrootspolicy.org].

Today, the ‘ballot integrity’ frame predominates. As in any framing contest, the facts don’t matter a lot, even for Supreme Court justices. Justice Stephens had to reach way back in time in order to find compelling examples of voter fraud in U.S. history. To rebut factual arguments about how rare fraud is today, Stephens cited New York City’s 1868 Tammany Hall elections. 1868? The Supremes are flogging the ghost of Boss Tweed.

Back to a more contemporary set of voting problems: Florida is in the news again. Since 2000, the Republican-controlled legislature has passed several laws that make it harder to vote in Florida than in any other state [see Pew’s electionline for more analysis]. One such law prevents voters from correcting mistakes or omissions on their registration forms in the final month before an election. The forms contain confusing questions that increase the likelihood of omissions and mistakes. Another law targets groups that register voters, imposing fines for lost or late registration forms. The desired effect of such a law is to deter groups from conducting voter registration drives. Because of this law and the vagueness of how it will be applied, the League of Women Voters is prepared to cease all voter registration activities in Florida.

The conservative war on voting rights helps explain what happened to liberal and progressive efforts to win reforms after the 2000 election. But it is not the whole story. The window of opportunity for reform shut quickly in part because we on the progressive/left did not have a bold, proactive plan. We were (and still are) up against well-coordinated and well-funded opposition. But, instead of responding with a coherent ‘democracy agenda’ that reclaims and expands opportunities for citizen participation (using the broadest meaning of ‘citizen’), we reacted in our usual piecemeal fashion.

Many of us got behind HAVA, only to be disappointed. We pushed for other kinds of reforms like same-day registration. Others argued for important reforms in the electoral system, like proportional representation or instant run-off voting. Some of us waged campaigns to win fusion voting in select states. Some argued that we should focus on building viable third parties. Others geared up for better ‘Get Out the Vote’ efforts and more strategic approaches to electoral engagement. While some groups saw voting rights as an ongoing civil rights issue in need of renewed emphasis, others avoided the civil rights angle. We have debated the role of base-building and leadership development as part of long-term electoral strategy. Each of these points, and each issue area, is worthy of serious debate and discussion. How do we coordinate our efforts, make priorities, support each other's efforts? How do we make it all add up to something greater than the sum of its parts? What would a genuine, multi-faceted democracy agenda look like? With a greater sense of the whole we could begin to develop a shared strategy. With a shared strategy we can coordinate our different efforts toward advancing a broader agenda. Without this level of coordination, we can do little more than respond to the Right’s onslaught of voter suppression measures. It’s time we gained the upper hand in framing voting rights as an essential part of expanding democratic participation in all forms and in every sector of society.

On Bailouts and Regulation

Sandra Hinson — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:08:28 -0700

Regarding rescue plans for homeowners caught up in the mortgage crisis, Senator John McCain has said: “It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly.” But what about the Wall Street firms whose irresponsible lending practices created this mess? For them, McCain and the Bush administration have agreed to a huge government bailout, in the form of $400 billion in loans at rock-bottom rates.

Contrary to what they've been telling us, conservatives don't necessarily oppose government intervention in the market; it all depends on who benefits from the intervention. And yet, defending free market ideology, in its most mythical proportions, is central to their worldview, which rests upon personal responsibility/rugged individualism, combined with a limited role for government and the primacy of market competition. This is why they fight against a modest and flawed proposal for the government to step in and refinance mortgages for homeowners who are at risk of defaulting. Conservatives cannot openly support government help for homeowners, even though they know some form of relief is bound to happen, because it undermines their core principles. And yet, if the market is supposed to be self-correcting, and is capable of imposing discipline upon those who act irresponsibly, then why does the government need to bail out financial institutions like Bear Stearns? This is one of the many contradictions we need to expose.

Here’s another contradiction worth exposing: If the government should not bail out those who act irresponsibly, as McCain says, then what should the government be doing to prevent irresponsible behavior on the part of Wall Street firms? The answer: regulation. But this is a four-letter word for corporate-conservatives. Deregulation has been a major plank in the corporate-conservative agenda, bolstered by the mainstreaming of their worldview about markets and the role of government. Since the early 1980s, they have managed to deregulate all aspects of the financial industry, and to prevent regulation of institutions like Bear Stears that operate outside of the regulatory system for banks. Now that we are facing the consequences of deregulation, conservatives are scrambling to beat back proposals that would overhaul the regulatory structure. Even now, the Administration argues that 'market discipline is the most effective tool to limit systemic risk.' They cannot concede the obvious because to do so would risk undermining the pillars of corporate-conservative ideology, especially their free market fundamentalism.

When it comes to no-strings-attached bailouts to Wall Street, which is what the $400 billion loans minus regulations amounts to, all their talk about not rewarding irresponsibility is exposed as hypocrisy.

Watch 'Unnatural Causes'

Sandra Hinson — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:57:00 -0700

Mark your calendar! Starting on Thursday, March 27, your local PBS station will begin broadcasting an important new series called 'Unnatural Causes.' You won’t want to miss it. This film series, by the California Newsreel and Vital Pictures, looks at the social determinants of health and asks: Is inequality making us sick? The answer is ‘yes.’ This has implications for social justice organizers and public health advocates. 'Unnatural Causes 'addresses the broadest range of issues affecting health, and points the way toward pushing the debate about healthcare beyond individually-focused and consumer-oriented approaches, using a health equity frame.

'Unnatural Causes' uses multiple sources and numerous experts to document health disparities, and to link them to the underlying and multiple factors that can enhance or inhibit overall health and wellbeing. As the series makes clear, social factors like income and wealth inequality, conditions of employment and economic security, levels of autonomy and empowerment, conditions in neighborhoods, access to education, transportation, and the consequences of discrimination and racial disparities are far better predictors of an individual’s overall health than personal and family history, or genetic factors. The growing disparities in income and access to education, as well as the differential effects of race, gender and class, help explain why the United States continues to rank well below other advanced industrialized nations in terms of public health indicators. We rank 30th in life expectancy. Our infant mortality rates are higher than Cuba’s. Yet, we spend $2 trillion per year on medical care.

The timing of the broadcast coincides with a new government study that documents a growing life expectancy gap –– further evidence of the link between inequality and health. As reported in the New York Times on Sunday, March 23, a team of medical researchers has developed an index to measure social and economic conditions in several counties across the country, using census data on education, income, poverty, housing and other factors. They found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades. Specifically, “…life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000.”

The series makes a compelling case for looking at any and all health issues, including the problem of lack of insurance, within a broader framework that takes into account all of the above-mentioned social factors. This way of thinking about public health has many champions within the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Researchers and practitioners like Bobby Milstein would like to expand its mission to “deal with all the conditions that create and sustain overall community health.”

The CDC is sponsoring research and networking across different facets of public health using a syndemics approach. Syndemics provides a set of tools and methodologies to deal with health equity, comparable in a sense to the tools that epidemiology provides to public health. Syndemics moves public health advocacy beyond its more familiar focus on acute health crises. By combining sociology, demography, health sciences, epidemiology and medical research, the CDC can offer much to our own efforts to promote health equity. Our vision of a good society, wed with good science and better public health advocacy, equals alternative policies and practices that we can test out and struggle over.

Speaking of struggle, health advocates and social movement organizers will have to engage in a worldview fight if we hope to shift the debate away from individualistic and crisis-focused approaches to health. 'Unnatural Causes' helps us wage this battle with solid evidence, but more importantly, with good stories that broaden the frame. The dominant frame for healthcare currently rests on a recurring theme: ‘personal responsibility.’ Consider the Heritage Foundation’s response to the government report on the growing life expectancy gap: The problem is not social policy, it is about a gap in ‘health literacy.’ Middle-class and upper-income people who are well-educated know more about taking care of themselves. They are more likely to understand the long-term consequences of certain behaviors, and they are more assertive in seeking out treatments and in adhering to treatment advice.

The theme of personal responsibility articulates well with anti-government themes to undermine a more systemic and societal approach to public health. When combined with arguments about the benefits of market competition, these themes define a narrow view of healthcare as a commodity. We are health consumers who purchase products and services in the healthcare marketplace. It is up to each of us to figure out how to get the best healthcare that money can buy. ‘Health as a commodity’ creates many distortions. If an outsider looked at healthcare priorities in terms of advertising dollars, the kinds of products people will pay for out-of-pocket, and the lucrative specialties that medical students are choosing, they might conclude that our greatest challenge is how to diminish fine lines and wrinkles.

A health equity framework can provide a comprehensive way of thinking not just about health, but about many if not most of the critical dimensions of people’s daily lives. It give us a way to link all these dimensions together, to demand that each of us deserves to live in conditions that promote health and wellbeing. 'Unnatural Causes' can help us get the conversation started.

A Responsible Exit

Sandra Hinson — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:09:50 -0700

Wednesday, March 19th marked the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Anti-war progressives and activists can use this moment to put forward a responsible exit strategy. Unfortunately, our side does not seem to be saying much more than 'bring the troops home.' We need ways of talking about what happens beyond, and alongside of, troop withdrawals. We can and should provide leadership in terms of shaping a responsible exit that helps the Iraqi people while repairing the damage this war has done to our nation’s status as a world leader.

The President gave an anemic defense of his Iraq policies on Wednesday. It would be a mistake, however, to think that Bush’s ineffectiveness at framing his arguments for staying in Iraq means we have the upper hand. Others in the pro-war camp are very good at framing a narrative about the war, and especially about the surge, in terms that resonate with the American people. And they will have ample opportunity to make their case in the coming months, leading up to the election.

The surge has produced a couple of notable results, namely, a modest decrease in violence in Iraq and a weakening of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Pro-war forces are taking advantage of these results to make the case for staying on the current course and halting any plans for drawing down the troops.

The best example of framing I’ve seen during this spate of 5th anniversary coverage comes from Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal:
"The tipping point came with 'the surge.' The new policy was marked by stoicism and an acceptance of the burdens of this war. For once, there was no promise of easy success.... The public is willing to grant this expedition time, and that's for the good… Americans know that the lands and sea lanes of the Persian Gulf are too vital to be left to mayhem and petty tyrants."

Framing is a way of telling a story about an event or issue, one that explains what the problem is, who is responsible and what the solutions are. A good frame uses resonant themes and values, giving the audience a sense of why they should care about the problem and how they can be part of solving it. Without compromising our core beliefs and principles, we can find ways of telling a story about current events and issues in Iraq that resonate with ordinary people. We can do this by tapping into their experiences and hopes, and by expanding their sense of possibility, which, ultimately, is more effective than shouting slogans.

Charles Knight, Co-Director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, offers a critique as well as elements of a progressive/left narrative for a responsible exit strategy.

According to Knight, anti-war activists tend to critique the surge with a narrative that goes something like this:
"Apparent gains from the ‘surge’ are temporary, there has been no real political progress within Iraq, and things will soon be much worse (or it will never get much better) – we must get out eventually and sooner is better than later when the place may well crash around our head (and/or we never had any right to be there in the first place.)"

Knight calls this a ‘dismal’ narrative. Truthful though it may be, this way of framing the surge sounds notes of pessimism and defeatism: ‘We should abandon the job in Iraq because it is hopeless and wrong’.

In contrast, people like Ajami speak of slow, steady progress, of learning from past mistakes and forging ahead. Things are slowly getting better for Iraqis. It involves sacrifice now, but, as things get better, our costs will slowly be reduced. It would be wrong and cowardly to stop now.

Knight asks, which frame resonates more? “The optimism that the job can be done, even when the job is hard? Or, The pessimism that the job should be abandoned because it is hopeless and wrong?”

A better way of framing the surge and the need for an exit strategy is to redefine our nation’s goals (or, as Knight says, redefine the job description) and reaffirm that, together, we can do right by the Iraqi people. The main goal at this point should be to withdraw from Iraq in a timely and responsible manner. Toward achieving this goal, we must:
* Set a date certain for complete withdrawal which will change the politics inside Iraq;
* Prepare for the change in Iraqi politics and influence it toward national reconciliation;
* Invest heavily in activities that mitigate and ameliorate as much as possible negative outcomes;
* Engage in a ‘new diplomacy’ in the Middle East that seeks accord with all of Iraq’s neighbors in support of a stable and prosperous Iraq;
* Make this regional accord the highest of priorities for US policy;
* Prepare and encourage the ‘international community’ to take up a limited and critical set of security roles in Iraq when the US leaves.

A progressive narrative for a responsible exit strategy must acknowledge the costs and the sacrifices involved in achieving our goals. Knight estimates that, for at least five years it will cost us $15 – 30 billion a year. He also points out that this is a bargain compared with the $150 - 300 billion a year we have been spending to keep the troops there. Others will be called upon to put themselves in harm’s way and to make financial contributions, such as the staffs of NGOs and international agencies. The exit strategy also calls upon Arab states and other wealthy nations to share the costs in terms of risks, finances and other kinds of sacrifices.

This narrative taps a larger set of themes that can resonate: “we can be responsible, morally whole, and not alone.” Knight embeds these themes into his proposed narrative with language like this: “We will bring our troops home and remain connected, indeed play a leadership role in, a community of responsible care for the future of Iraq.” With such a narrative, he argues, we have a better chance of gaining the support of the 20 percent of the American public who are not sure what we should do about Iraq. Beyond this, a national public discourse on Iraq that is informed by this kind of narrative gives us a chance to get beyond the quagmire that is Iraq.