Adrian Pantoja, Moderator:
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to President Melvin Oliver’s Racial Justice Initiative, the event on the 2020 election. I am Professor Adrian Pantoja. I’m currently the Associate Dean of Faculty. I’m chairing the Racial Justice Initiative and I am a member of the Political Studies and Chicano Studies field group. I’ve been here since 2006, so I guess that makes me old. I will be moderating today’s panel. The name of our event is “The Rainbow Wave and the 2020 Election.” Now, the reason I chose the title, The Rainbow Wave, was largely taken from Van Jones, the CNN commentator who in 2018 during the midterm elections, as a result of Trump’s presidency, the Republican agenda, people of color, voters of color, turned out in record numbers in 2018. They also ran for office in record numbers in 2018. So we had many firsts. Van Jones, given the outcome of 2018 he said, there was a blue wave, there was a rainbow wave, people of color responded in large numbers. And so we had many firsts.
We had the election of Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Charisse Davis, Deb Haaland and Veronica Escobar, Sylvia Garcia, Ayanna Pressley, Jahana Hayes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kyrsten Sinema,100% of New Mexico’s congressional representatives are Hispanic or Native American. And Democrats won all seven congressional seats in Orange County. So, 2018 gave me hope. 2018 was a turning point for me. It certainly gave me hope after what happened in 2016.
The question for us tonight and the question for us that we’re going to be grappling with in terms of the 2020 election, and that is, will the rainbow wave continue? Or has COVID diminished that energy? Is Biden running an effective campaign? Can Trump pull off another victory?
In order to bring clarity to these and other questions, I’ve invited some of the top political scientists in the country who study African American, Latino and Asian American voters. Together, these voters constitute over 70 million eligible voters. Look, if we had 100% turnout, I’d be calling the election right now, but we don’t. Nonetheless, we still have a sizable electorate. Just to put those numbers in perspective, what that 70 million eligible voters mean, Hillary Clinton in 2016 won 65 million voters, or 65 million votes. So we’re talking about a sizable population, a sizable electorate, we’re no longer talking about miniscule populations politically.
When the invited panelists and I first met, we were all newly-minted PhDs who are going to change the discipline and change the world, we were going to make an impact in the real world of politics. I think looking back, we’re certainly older now, perhaps wiser. But I think it’s fair to say that we’re still as audacious now as we were back then. The fire is not yet out.
So let me introduce our distinguished guests. First, I have Victoria DeFrancesco Soto. She is assistant dean for civic engagement and a lecturer at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where she was selected as one of UT’s game changers. She is also a faculty affiliate at the Department of Mexican American and Latino Studies and the Center for Mexican American Studies. She received her PhD in political science from Duke University, during which she was a National Science Foundation fellow, named one of the top 12 scholars in the country by Diverse magazine. She previously taught at Northwestern University and Rutgers. In her research and teaching, Dr. DeFrancesco Soto brings an interdisciplinary lens to the understanding of American politics and policy. Her areas of expertise include immigration, women in politics, political psychology and campaigns and elections. She is a contributor to MSNBC and NBC News. (Are we supposed to be boycotting NBC tonight? Or I can’t remember which one we’re waiting on.) Anyway, she’s an NBC News as well as a regular political analyst for Telemundo. She has provided on-air analysis for CNN, Fox, PBS, maybe CNN and NPR and she has appeared on HBO on Real Time with Bill Mayer. Most recently she was a featured expert in the PBS documentary “Willie Velasquez: Your Vote is Your Voice” of the civil rights trailblazer. Dr. DeFrancesco Soto has also been published in both academic and popular outlets such as Politico, Talking Points Memo and Perspectives on Politics, where she has translated social science research into more readable and relatable forms and readable, I would say, forms of information for a wider variety of audiences. So welcome DeFrancesco.
Next, I have Professor Jane Junn. She is a political science professor at the University of Southern California. She is the author of five books on political participation and public opinion in the United States. Her most recent book is The Politics of Belonging: Race, Public Opinion, and Immigration. Her first book, Education and Democratic Citizenship in America, won the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award from the American Political Science Association for the best book published in political science. It’s not just in the subfield, it’s for the entire discipline of political science. She is also the author of Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn; New Race Politics in America: Understanding Minority and Immigrant Politics; and Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and Their Political Identities. I’ve used that book in some graduate classes. Her research articles on political behavior, public opinion, racial and ethnic politics, and the politics of immigration, gender and politics and political identity have appeared in journals including Perspectives of Politics, the Du Bois Review, Politics and Gender, American Politics Research and the American Behavioral Scientist. So lots of journals. Jane has been vice president of the American Political Science Association, a Fulbright senior scholar and the recipient of the outstanding teacher award from Columbia University Teachers College. She was a member of the Social Science Research Council, National Research Commission on Elections and Voting, and a member of the National Academy of Science Committee on the US naturalization test redesign. She was a director of the USC Los Angeles Times poll during the 2010 California election and she is currently at work on her new book. That’s book number six on the gender gap and voting in the United States. So welcome, Professor Junn.
And finally, we have Professor Evelyn Simien, who’s a native of Lake Charles, Louisiana. She graduated cum laude with a BA from Xavier University in Louisiana, where she majored in political science and minored in mass communications and African American Studies. A former radio announcer, she received her MA and PhD degrees in political science from Purdue University. A full professor in the Department of Political Science, she is the director of the Indigeneity, Race, Ethnicity and Politics Master’s Degree Program at the University of Connecticut. Her first book, Black Feminist Voices and Politics, examines Black feminist consciousness, and its effects on political behavior using national survey data. Her second book, Gender and Lynching: The Politics of Memory focused on African American women who suffered racial sexual violence at the hands of lynch mobs in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Her third book Historic Firsts: How Symbolic Empowerment Changes U.S. Politics considers whether candidates like Shirley Chisolm in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1984, as well as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008, mobilize voters through emotional appeals while combating stereotypes and providing more inclusive representation. A nationally recognized teacher, Professor Simien was awarded the 2008 Anna Julia Cooper Teacher of the Year Award from the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, and the 2007 Teacher of Promise Award from the American Association of University Professors. She was also recognized as the 2017 Faculty Member of the Year by the Yukon chapter of the NAACP. She teaches the following undergraduate and graduate classes: African American Politics, Black Feminist Theory, and Politics, Black Leadership and Civil Rights as well as Race, Gender and Ethnic Politics.
So we have an impressive group of scholars, who I’m proud to say, are my colleagues but more importantly, friends of mine. So we’re in the right hands in terms of learning about politics in 2020. So let’s jump into the questions.
So in this election, like other elections, I’m deep in the weeds, I’m studying and immersing myself with Latino politics. I’m looking at public opinion data. I’m very much in the weeds, looking at Latino politics. And rarely do I get a chance, maybe until weeks after the election, to kind of pull back and kind of see the big picture. So to be honest with you, even though I’m a professor on racial politics, I’m not really sure what’s going on with African American voters. I’m not really sure what’s going on with Asian American voters. And with the exception of certain places, I’m not really sure what’s going on with Latino voters and other places. So this is why I’ve asked these scholars to come here today. One of the first questions I have is in this election, what’s important to minority voters? What is it that’s driving African American voters to the polls? What is it that’s driving Asian Americans and Latinos to the polls? So who wants to take that question first?
09:58
Evelyn Simien:
Well, I guess I’ll jump in. When I think about my area of specialty, African American politics, my mind immediately goes to health disparities and the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on this particular demographic. They are frontline workers, essential workers, they are perhaps the most vulnerable given pre-existing conditions. And the way in which the Affordable Care Act being sort of in jeopardy at this particular time, as we bet, potential Supreme Court Justice, who we believe is opposed to the Affordable Care Act, I think that is one of the issues that keeps me up at night, as well as many African Americans in health care. And their livelihood, the rate in which they’ve been unemployed, and the way in which they have probably already experienced the gravity, the weight of loss of loved ones, if not, those who have been hospitalized and impaired by the virus, those who they have had to lose as a result of it. So at the forefront, I think it is the reality of both the health crisis at hand, along with the economic realities that they face.
Adrian Pantoja:
So it seems very personalized, what you’re describing, it’s not these broad issues of the economy, or the national wellbeing in terms of economic outlooks or some foreign policy issue, it seems like a very personalized motivator for African American voters. Let me ask Professor Junn, what do you see in terms of Asian voters?
12:03
Jane Junn:
I think that Asian American voters have very similar concerns to what Evelyn mentioned for African Americans. But I think all American voters are concerned by many of the same things, not only COVID and access to health care, but issues of racial equality, racial injustice, education, law enforcement, immigration, foreign policy, and of course, the rule of law. How is it and under what circumstances do we see democracy at work, and long-standing established traditions of separation of powers, for instance, and basic competence in office as an issue. These are all things that motivate all voters. And I think that there may be specific ones for specific subpopulations. But all Americans are suffering under the current regime, you could argue, and therefore all of them are concerned about many of the same issues.
Adrian Pantoja:
So there’s some overlapping issues. Again, I’m trying to get the big picture. On the other hand, immigration, one of the things I’ve argued, is that oftentimes we equate the policy of immigration with Latinos, yet the Latino population, the foreign born population is in the mid-40s 45%; 46% of Latinos are foreign born. Whereas for Asian Americans, we’re looking at a population that’s over 60% that are foreign born. So the issue of immigration is one that’s particularly important to Asian Americans. Do you think that’s a particular motivator for them in this election?
Jane Junn:
It’s actually more like 75% of adult Asian Americans in the United States are foreign born. And that is among adults. It’s lower, obviously, if you look at all ages, because you have more second generation born here. It’s a major issue, in particular, given changes that the Trump administration has made to the provision of visas for working in the United States, and then for the long, long, much longer road to citizenship through policies that have changed with respect to Citizenship and Immigration Services. So yes, it is the case that immigration has always been an important issue for Asian Americans, and increasingly so now, given the policies of the Trump administration.
Adrian Pantoja:
Victoria? What do you think around with Latinos?
14:27
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Well, before I jump in answering that I wanted to thank you and Pitzer for hosting this because it’s really not that often that we have a space to unpack the rainbow, which is, what are the different minority voting trends and what are we looking at going into the election? And so I’m not going to say anything new. I’m going to just build on what Jane and Evelyn said which is, it’s really at the core about the economy, and the economy is always important. But with the onset of COVID and the recession that it spurred, we are seeing unemployment rates, especially at the peak, that we hadn’t seen since the Great Depression. And then at the same time, we have a pretty dysfunctional government. So yes, we did see a round of checks go out, yes, we did see some stimulus dollars. But that only goes so far if you’ve lost your job, and you need to feed your kids. So the fact that there is not another round of stimulus that looks like it’s coming down the pike is really problematic. So those concerns that all of us have about the economy, have been exacerbated not only by the pandemic and the loss of jobs, where communities of color, and especially women of color, have faced the disproportionate brunt of the crisis, we’re also seeing the lack of aid, and jobless benefits are running out here in Texas. We have a very conservative, very limited government here, and folks are hurting. So I think that the economy and the fact that folks are hurting ties into all of these other issues. Health care, for example, so you can’t pay your bills to make sure your lights stay on, how are you going to pay your medical bills? And at the same time, you have that larger wave that Jane was referencing of racial justice. So going into this, voters, and especially voters of color, have a very heavy burden upon themselves, which is in the center of economic anxiety exacerbated by all of these other points.
16:34
Adrian Pantoja:
Everything you’re saying (again, I’m going to play the devil’s advocate), seems true to me. Yet I have family members, I know Latinos that are voting for Trump again, so I’m going to come back to this Trump question, because what you’re describing… [Victoria: Yeah, I know them, too.] I feel like, hey, this is game over. There’s no way Trump’s going to win. Hey, I thought that in 2016, and I was wrong.
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
But some people think that he’s good for the economy. So that’s the thing like, this is the problem. The issue is that different folks think that there are different solutions. And among the Latino community, especially here in Texas, there’s about 30%, that say, “You know what? Small government is the answer. Let’s just put our trust in the GOP.”
Adrian Pantoja:
Yeah, yeah. All of you noted, the importance of women of color, the economic impact that it’s having on women of color, in particular COVID. And again, COVID exacerbating economic dislocation. In this election, okay, so let me go back. 2018, the names I read you on the first, many of those were women of color that ran for office. There was celebrated in terms of voter turnout, the power of women voters, in particular, women of color. The selection of Kamala Harris was also driven in part by this, this idea, or this understanding that women of color are going to play a powerful role in helping the Democrats toward victory. But something’s changed. We’re in the midst of COVID. And women of color are bearing a disproportionate brunt of that. Women of color are hurting economically. Did Biden, did the Democrats make a mistake by banking or pinning their hopes on women of color? Or am I overreading that? Who wants to take that?
18:34
Jane Junn:
You’re overreading it, Adrian.
Adrian Pantoja:
Okay. Why am I overreading this?
Jane Junn:
Look, women of color do everything, just like women, White women, too. I’m not trying to say that men don’t, but the original multitasker was a woman. And by this, I mean that despite other burdens and other hurdles and additional baggage, having required caring when voters have always done. So let’s just take a walk through that and think about it for a moment. Let’s just talk about women voters. Who’s the modal voter in politics today? So in other words, are there more women or more men in the electorate in 2020, estimated? Let’s just talk about ‘18 or ‘16. More women or men in the electorate? I’m asking you.
Adrian Pantoja:
You’re asking me? [Victoria DeFrancesco Soto: Okay, a million.]
Jane Junn:
Okay. So let’s, let’s roll the date back. What about 1964? You know, like, Don Draper-style, Madmen time? More women or more men?
Adrian Pantoja:
In terms of the election?
Jane Junn:
Well, the electorate, who’s in the electorate? Who voted?
Adrian Pantoja:
There, I’m going to guess more men, but maybe I’m wrong.
Jane Junn:
You’re wrong. It’s more women. There were more women in the electorate in 1964, even back in 1964. So women have been carrying the water on electoral politics for a long time. But as you know, there are more White, more among White women, all women aren’t the same. So White women are much more likely to vote for Republicans and in fact, have voted majority Republican in every presidential election since 1952, with the exception of two elections. Do you know what those are? You thought you were asking the questions today!
Adrian Pantoja:
I know, I know. I’m going to say Clinton, but who are those presidents?
Jane Junn:
Johnson and Clinton, which is ironic, of course, who White women support by about a 9% margin. Right, right, you guys? Trump over Bill Clinton’s wife, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. So let’s go back to women of color voters prior to the time in which the gender gap existed because the gender gap, we don’t actually see that till the mid-80s. What causes the gender gap? Do all these women decide I’m just going to burn my bra and decide no longer to vote with my husband? Not so much, right? But the answer to that then, why is it that women start to look more Democratic then than overall, in the 1980s? Who causes that?
Adrian Pantoja:
The diversity of women?
21:13
Jane Junn:
That’s right. It’s women of color who enter the electorate, 20 years after the voting rights act, 20 years after the Immigration Nationality Act. All of your relatives, Vicky’s, Evelyn’s and mine, women of color, vote heavily Democratic. Polling with them, carrying with them across the finish line, the Democratic finish line, in other words, a majority Democratic vote among women consistently, so taking White women with them, even though White women remain consistently majority Democrat, Republican voters. So what do women of color do? They are consistent stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party and have among many other things besides raised children, bought houses, built businesses run for office, they have created the gender gap today.
Adrian Pantoja:
So I shouldn’t worry about COVID. I mean, it’s real, they’re being impacted. But your description is like they’ve faced probably even greater obstacles in the past and have managed to do it. Other thoughts? Victoria?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
I just finished a project on this, a white paper for the YWCA, where we’re focusing on the COVID economic crisis, what we’ve come to know as the “she-session,” and what the path of recovery is. But the content of this paper was essentially, women have been hit the hardest in these two areas: jobs; we lost the most jobs, and a lot of these jobs are not coming back, because women of color, and women in general, we tend to be over-represented in low wage and low skilled jobs. A lot of these jobs aren’t coming back. And second, childcare. So for the women who were lucky enough to keep their jobs, they weren’t laid off, how are they going to make it work if they weren’t privileged enough to be able to work? You also saw this involuntary departure from the workforce of a lot of women. Again, we’re not going to know for sure, Adrian, until November 3rd, 4th, hopefully soon thereafter. But women are ticked off, for not using a bolder word. And I think that these issues of childcare that have hit us disproportionately hard, along with the issue of jobs, are going to be motivators for women, especially women of color, because there is really no other place to go for women of color except in charting a solution and coming out and voting for a party and agenda that supports that recovery.
Adrian Pantoja:
I think you’re convincing me then that Kamala Harris was the right choice, the smart choice, the smartest choice.
24:08
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Look, we can get into a discussion of descriptive politics, I don’t think it hurts. I think there are a lot of other great women out there, women of color. Super anecdotal, but some African American women that I get together with for political stuff, we’re saying we want Elizabeth Warren. And I’ve heard that a lot, too. You know, the VP doesn’t make or break a ticket, except maybe Sarah Palin, but even then, Barack Obama was such a huge phenomenon. But she was a great solid choice. And we could go back and forth about coulda, woulda, shoulda another candidate, but I think she that she’s definitely a solid, all-around choice.
Adrian Pantoja:
Well, let me go on because the issue of race is coming up even in terms of gender, and the gender gap, and all three of you have looked at the gender gap, women of color in politics. And so in 2016, it’s hard to argue that anything but race really drove the outcome of that election. And maybe that’s true of other elections, but certainly the media picked up on 2016. And it was there that Van Jones said, what we experienced was a whitelash, essentially 60 (what’s the numbers that I have), 62% of White men, these are the exit polls, so it’s probably even higher. 62% of White men voted for Donald Trump. 52% of White women, what you were describing, Jane, voted for Donald Trump. The idea of the whitelash is, the narrative is that White voters are seeing their political power diminished. It’s a reaction to the rise, what was used to be called the new American electorate, I don’t think they call us that anymore. But the rise of African American voters, the rise of Latino voters, the rise of Asian American voters, that was 2016. The political power of these groups that presumably were a threat to them, has not gone down, has gone up. So the threat, if portrayed that way, has gone up. Will we experience another whitelash in 2020, just like in 2016?
26:37
Evelyn Simien:
I definitely think there is a White voter out there that feels threatened, and out of fear is sort of driven to the polls and to react, taking the form of the rise of these militia groups and other extremist groups, as we see taking place in the streets in the midst of a series of multi-located protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s arrest and subsequent death. There is sort of an internal sort of civil war that we are all witnessing, in light of that death, as we sort of wait to see the outcome of what will be the justice system in that case. We know there was no justice in the aftermath of Breanna Taylor’s death in Louisville, Kentucky. And so, certainly I think there is a demographic, there is a group that will behave in such a way that there could be voter intimidation besides the voter suppression that has been talked about. I think there can be voter intimidation as Trump and others advocate for people to watch and monitor the polls.
Adrian Pantoja:
So the whitelash then has not gone away. And you think it could rear its head, the ghost of 2016 which is what worries me and could reappear in 2020. Look, Biden’s ahead; so was Hillary, Biden’s outspending Trump; so did Hillary. I was in tears in 2016. I don’t want to be in tears in 2020.
28:37
Jane Junn:
Stop worrying, Adrian. Okay; so also, I mean, it’s always good to be a little worried, but it’s not going to happen. It’s not going to repeat itself because it was a perfect storm. It happened to be a perfect storm in 2016 with respect to the electoral college and some very close states. But what I want us all to remember is that 2016 isn’t some weird aberrant year, you know. Whitelash is the foundation of this nation. White supremacy is the foundation of this nation. It’s not like it just appeared all of a sudden, boom, and it came out in 2016. When you look at the electoral patterns of American voters, when you look at White voters over the course of time, and this includes, all you need to do is go back and look at the civil rights era and prior to that. All you need to do is look at Strom Thurmond and a state’s rights party, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan. Remember, where does Ronald Reagan make his speech announcing his candidacy? Let’s not forget it was his state’s right speech. Where did he give that speech to announce the candidacy for presidency? Philadelphia, Mississippi fairgrounds, and where is that? Very nearby to the location where civil rights activists had been murdered and buried in that very same spot. So to say that whitelash has occurred only in 2016 is historically very short sighted.
Whitelash is what defines electoral politics in the United States, 2008 and 2012 were the unusual years. Prior to that, it’s always been the same. So if you took your little cup and you filled it up (I have my little thermos cup here), I filled this up with the Republican Party voters, let’s just say this is a couple of voters, how high would this cup, how full would it be with Whites? So all the people that support the Republican Party candidates, how full would it be?
[Adrian Pantoja: Republicans, you’re saying.] Just Republicans, if you put them all in the pool, if all the Republican voters went in the pool, how full would it be with Whites? [Adrian Pantoja: It’s almost near, almost to the top.] 90%. And is that different today than it was in 1960? No, it’s not. It’s always been that way. So to the extent that the Republican Party remains the party of White privilege, White supremacy, whatever you want to call it, it’s always been that way. So in years past, and in previous elections when we had fewer voters of color, less mobilization, less targeted efforts to elect Democratic Progressive candidates, we have managed, the Democratic Party has managed in those candidates have. So that’s why you don’t worry about it. Because I think we’re better and smarter in 2020 than we were before. And it’s not as if 2016, it’s like, anybody have ants in their kitchen? If you live in California, you’ve got ants in your kitchen, that right? And you if you’ve never lived in California, you’re like, oh my gosh, what are these ants doing in my kitchen? And we all know, they’re always ants in your kitchen, you just only see them certain times of the year. So to say the whitelash that you’re seeing it now because we’re in an election, the ants have always been there. They only come into the kitchen once every four years, or in our case, only during the fall when there is no water. So what I’m saying is that whitelash is a continuous feature of American politics. And we cannot think of it as just something that only happened in 2016. It defines our political existence. It defines the founding document to the United States, that is the Constitution. If you are an originalist, you must count, you must, and if you are somebody who believes in an original interpretation of the constitution, it was written by the people, then you must account for the fact that that document was written with White supremacy in mind. So I don’t think the question is to say, Oh, is it gone away? It’s not gone away. It’s never been; it’s been stronger at some points and weaker at others. Nevertheless, whitelash is an essential feature of American politics.
Adrian Pantoja:
True enough. And Trump defied, or what people have argued, just managed to put together this improbable victory, but he pulled it off, he pulled it off. So you’re saying not to worry. Victoria, any thoughts on, and I again, I’m hesitant to make predictions, because I was very confident in 2016. And my confidence just slipped away, hour by hour, minute by minute, on election night. Some of our colleagues and friends of ours that were with me, it was like we were at a funeral. So what are your thoughts on 2020?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
And so, I’m not as confident as my dear friend Jane. You know, it ain’t over tlil the fat lady sings. And so until the election is over, when all votes are counted, then at that point, I’ll say, Okay, we got it. I mean, I think all indications point toward a Biden win. Just before we hopped on this session, I checked Real Clear Politics, Biden has almost a 10-point lead; in the battlegrounds, that’s close to five. But as we saw in 2016, Hillary Clinton also had a very healthy lead. And the other piece, and I think I’m so sensitive to it because I’m in a red state, and I’m in a state that has been at the forefront of voter suppression. And Republicans know that the race is incredibly tight. And so they also know that they haven’t been able to expand the electorate, they’re not gaining new voters, right? And what Jane was saying the cup is full, and really there’s no place to go. But you can restrict, and you can suppress, and that is something that we’ve been seeing and that we know can have very severe effects. We’re seeing voter suppression that is indirect. You know, something as simple as saying that you can’t do curbside voting or that you can only have one mail drop off. Okay, that’s voter suppression. One voter suppression tactic that I see is time. When people have to wait for seven, eight hours in line, heck, two hours in line, that’s voter suppression because people who don’t have the luxury of time, that’s a suppressive mechanism. That means that these counties are not providing the electoral equipment that’s necessary. And then let’s add in disinformation. We don’t know what elections are going to look like. So far, we haven’t seen any blatant violence reported, but I’m not discounting that there could be a violent incident that breaks out on election day. So, while I see the poll numbers being very promising for the Democratic Party, at the same time, I do worry about the electoral constraint at the ballot boxes, and also turnout. It pains me that my people do not vote at the rates they should. Latinos have lagged behind. We saw in 2018 a glimmer when Latinos had record breakout, record turnout (sorry), that rivaled that of some presidential turnout. But again, I’m going to believe it when I see it in 2020. I want to make sure that that turnout is there. I want to make sure that there’s that accessibility. And then I’ll be like, Okay, it’s done. But until mid-November or right after election night, depending on when all the votes are counted, I’m not going to breathe easy.
Adrian Pantoja:
All right, Okay. So I’m, we see some splits here. And yeah, maybe I’m just naturally nervous here. But I do want to pick up on something that Jane said, and that is about this continuity of race in the electorate. And of course, you’d have to be naive to suggest that it hasn’t been present. On the other hand, here’s where I think there’s a difference, but correct me if I’m wrong. Political advisors like Lee Atwater, and other advisors to the Republican Party essentially said, Look, the Strom Thurmans, the George Wallaces, you’re not going to win the presidency. And he said, you’re not going to be winning the presidency saying the N word N word N word, that’s going to hurt you. You got to use coded language, you got to use states’ rights, you got to use welfare, busing, law and order, you got to use racially coded language, because if you cross that line, if you go from the implicit to the explicit, it’s going to hurt you. Okay. I believe that. Yet Trump seems to have crossed that line multiple times. Is Lee Atwater and the political scientists who have studied this issue, are we just wrong? Do people cross the line all the time? And essentially, you’re not punished for it? You’re rewarded for that? Or does it take time then? Perhaps, if there is that line, does it take time for the backlash to develop? So let me start with Jane on that, because you’re the one that’s saying this race has been a continuity. I’m not sure.
39:24
Jane Junn:
Adrian, not everybody has the same sensibilities about races you do. It’s a highly heterogeneous population. When Trump says he wants us to go back to where our s___ hole countries, when other language, whether it’s the party of states’ rights, or the Republican Party of the 80s, or the Republican Party today, people react differently. Those kinds of statements are exactly the things that energize the Republican base that supports Trump, that language. And that desire to be, to say things that have been considered politically incorrect are precisely what motivates them, which is precisely why he continues to do it. But I think it’s important to know that the people that you identify here, Tali Mendelberg, an old friend of mine a dear friend as well, and perhaps Lee Atwater also, a person who was active in the 80s and 90s.
Adrian Pantoja:
There may have been, I’m gonna guess…
Jane Junn:
If not Lee Atwater, who did you describe then?
Adrian Pantoja:
No, no, it was Lee Atwater. But he certainly was no friend, or anyone….
Jane Junn:
The point is that this is during the 90s when there was a little bit more civility. But I don’t think that prior to that there was, and to say that everybody believes that you can’t make, that it’s incorrect to sort of speak about racial antipathy openly is kidding themselves. I mean, I don’t think it’s… all you have to do, let’s go to Texas or rural Georgia or north, or basically from where we are, Adrian, you just need to drive another 15 miles east into central, into Riverside or San Bernardino Counties and find that locations where, if you think about it, I think it was the Vicki or Evelyn who mentioned the militias. Michigan is, you might consider a nice state like Minnesota, Minneapolis, but it’s also the location where armed militia, domestic terrorists were attempting to kidnap the governor of the state. So I think to say that there’s this conventional wisdom that you can’t make openly racist comments is wishful thinking, and possibly relevant to half of the population of Whites. But the other half of the population, remember, there’s at least 40% of White Americans who strongly disagree with the Republican Party on Trump. And that is a very vocal, and I think important group among progressive voters. So not all Whites are openly embracing Trump and his racist ideology. And yet at the same time, it’s just not correct to say the candidates cannot cross the line because it has been disproven many times. And most recently, probably just yesterday, or maybe even in the set of tweets today. So I’m not saying that they’re wrong. They’re just wrong about the majority of White voters.
Adrian Pantoja:
In terms of that line: Victoria, any thoughts on the implicit-explicit line?
41:49
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Right, so I’m reminded of the term dog whistle politics, right, that was used to characterize the Willie Horton ads and these subtle racial appeals, whereas we’ve gone from the dog whistle to the bullhorn with Donald Trump. Donald Trump has broken pretty much every rule that we’ve had in politics. And I think, in going back to your question about the whitelash, I think that there was just so much simmering anger and frustration at the change of what many saw was kind of the classic American political landscape with the election of Barack Obama, that that allowed for a space where you could have that type of blatant language. And then it’s also just a coincidence that you had someone, a Donald Trump, who was a celebrity and he knows how to get attention. And he knows how to use the media. He knows how to manipulate the media. So I think you coupled the general national frustration that began to simmer with the Tea Party revolution in 2010. And then we saw Donald Trump testing the waters with the birther movement, so that in 2016, he was able to provide this very explicit bullhorn rhetoric with regards to race. And the fact that he was not punished for it, and actually won the presidency has only emboldened him. The question is, will that be kind of put back into the box for a while? Will those ants go away? For the time being, in November, we’re going to see in three weeks.
Adrian Pantoja:
Evelyn, so this idea that presidents can cross that line, they’ve done it before, Trump crossed that line and somehow was not punished. Or again, are the advisors, Tali Mendelberg, are we just wrong?
43:55
Evelyn Simien:
I think we see it every day when we see a Trump sign, or a bumper sticker, or the MAGA hat that people freely, openly wear, that such a theory is disproven in the case of Trump. And he’s not just a racist, but he’s a xenophobe. He’s a misogynist. Even when you think about his comments with regard to the military, and men who have served, lost their lives, and sacrificed in countless ways, he has offended so many groups that it runs the gamut. And it almost appears to be a case of good versus evil when you consider just about every demographic that has been his target. And what I witness in my own community are signs, it’s almost like neighbors are in conflict with one another, where never before have I’ve seen so many campaign signs in people’s lawns, where you can enter my town. And you see, I’m in an overwhelmingly White community, and they’re all Black Lives Matter signs, and Biden/Harris, and directly across the street, you’ll see Trump/Pence 2020. And then you’ll see a huge banner in response to the neighbor that has Trump/Pence 2020 that says, moral leadership matters. And I see this throughout. On my street, there’s not a single Trump/Pence sign. But there’s Black Lives Matter and there is Biden/Harris.
And I don’t know that there’s another person of color on my street, and it’s a mile long. But if you go to the next street over, you’ll see a bunch of Trump and Pence supporters, but across the street from them, there’s Biden/Harris. And you constantly see these because I’ll know the signs weren’t up last week. And so it’s this response I’m witnessing as a political scientist saying somebody has to study this, because I’ve been living here for over a decade, and never before have I seen so many lawn signs demonstrating people’s politics. And they support also, those people on the front lines of COVID, where you see a series of huge red hearts, as well, in my community. But it shows a clear signal, in terms of people’s support, and I think the outcome of this election will be very interesting to say the least. But when you talk about this White backlash, I can’t separate that White backlash from sort of the patriarchy, the misogyny, that unfolded in 2016. You can’t divorce race from gender, especially when considering White women, were the demographic largely responsible for Donald Trump’s win and Hillary Clinton’s loss insofar as Electoral College is concerned, right? But it’s really a study of White, patriarchal hegemony. I mean, really, you can’t talk about it through a racial lens alone. There’s too much, it calls for intersectional analysis.
Adrian Panjoja:
Absolutely. And..,what’s that?
Jane Junn:
I’m just agreeing. Yes.
48:18
Adrian Pantoja:
Absolutely. And I remember in 2016, talking to reporters saying, Look, he’s alienating everybody. He’s, I mean, who’s going to vote for this guy? And maybe June says yeah, it’s offending my sensibilities. And yet, and yet in 2016, family members, friends voted for him that are Latino, after El Paso, after open violence, rise of hate crimes, those same family members and friends, I see them on Facebook, they’re still going to vote for him again. Why does he have support among people of color? I get, I follow the logic in terms of White women, I get the logic in terms of Whites, but among people of color, he tends to, there seems to be some stability there. And people are asking me these kinds of questions. Was it 30% of Latinos voted? Was it smaller? Even if it’s a quarter, Jesus, that’s a core Hispanic population. How would you respond to those questions? Why are people of color, some people of color embracing Trump?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Well, let me take a stab at it, the Latino electorate, which is the electorate I know best. So, to begin, there is a religious component to it, right? Let me back up. There is no one reason. There are multiple factors that contribute to that quarter to 30%-ish Latino vote for Trump and in general for the Republican Party. But part of it is, especially (and you know, this research) well, those folks who are closer to their immigration experience, are more ideologically conservative, more Catholic, very zealously pro-life. Because of that fervent pro-lifeness, will vote for a Republican because that’s just kind of the captured issue by the Republican Party. And then there’s the foreign policy piece to it, right? So they are your Cubans in South Florida, your smattering of Nicaraguans and maybe some Venezuelans who, they left a communist regime and had that antagonism toward communism. And so, as Trump has done a very good job, by the way, at hanging the communist wreath around the necks of Democrats; that’s a reason why you see that block very solid. The other reason is Latinos are like Black and White folks, too. There’s something that appeals to them of Trump. I’ve always argued that Trump is a master marketer, and he has known how to wield aspirational marketing. So when you open up a magazine and you see expensive cars and luxury items, and you aspire to that, and Trump has always been an aspirational brand himself, and very savvy, by the way. So I think you start to add in all of those things. And you see why, in this election, not in 2016, but in this election, we also see the fact that Trump has been working hard for the Latino vote. So since 2016, Latinos who are conservative, have had that contact with Trump. In 2016, Trump didn’t have any Latino-targeted outreach. This time around, we see a dedicated shiny glitzy Latinos for Trump side, there’s not a whole lot of substance there. And the other thing is this summer, Trump passed a bunch of executive orders, initiatives around Hispanic prosperity; is there much there? Probably not, but he’s been cultivating that tie whereas the Democrats were a little behind the game when it comes to Trump, came to Trump, investing in the Latino population. So that’s about four or five things that come together, that help explain that. And finally, Adrian, you are a native Texan, you also know that Texans are a little bit more conservative by nature, Black, White, Brown. So for these Texans who don’t have that foreign policy consideration, we also see that just general Texas conservatism, becomes part of their culture, and also infuses their vote and their partisan identification.
52:58
Adrian Pantoja:
They told this one reporter, you know, I’m a third generation Latino from Texas, like, well, you’re still a recent immigrant compared to some of the older Texas generations that are there, the older Texas Tejano families that have been there for many more generations.
Jane Junn:
Can I follow up on that? I think it’s important not to pathologize voters of color who choose Republicans. Because as analysts, we have to set our own feelings aside and try to understand why people are doing what they’re doing. So it’s important to not pathologize them and say, “Oh, you crazy, irrational person. What are you doing this for? It’s not good for you.” People do tons of things that aren’t good for them. We watch bad TV. We don’t take our medicine when we’re supposed to, we eat fried food. We do all kinds of things. We worry too much. We do lots of things that aren’t good for us and you could consider those to be pathologies and point them out. But it’s very hard to persuade somebody off of a position that they take. And I think that this goes to, I want to amplify things that both Evelyn and Vicki have said; in particular, with Evelyn’s point on intersectionality, you cannot understand the dynamics of electoral politics without talking about not only race and gender combined, but also class. This is the holy trinity of inequalities in the United States: race, class, gender, but race and gender are particularly important.
And then also back to Vicki’s point with respect to traditionalism. And what it is and that kind of conservative tendency that you might see in populations, specifically populations who themselves are on the receiving end of discrimination, maybe for some of them, it’s better to pretend it’s not there than it’s better to feel like you might be wrong. But let’s go to the question of traditionalism with respect to the intersection of gender and race. A lot of reporters have asked me about, “Why does Trump talk about, tweet out about suburban housewives? And invariably their female reporters from ostensibly, kind of East Coast publications say, isn’t that just a term of derision? How can he do that to insult women like that? And I explain, I don’t think that’s an insult. It’s not intended as an insult at all. As Vicki noted, he’s a master marketer. What’s the most, one of the most successful franchises on Bravo TV? Not that any of you watch it, but come on now, right? The Real Housewives franchise. If you’re a real housewife, what are you? You may be full of a lot of plastic and silicone, but you’re pretty good looking on TV, you’re popular. You don’t have to work, your husband takes care of you. And you can spend all day doing your nails and getting your hair done. So the point here is that I don’t think that when Trump comes out and talks about something like suburban housewives, it’s not meant for like the three of us women. It’s not meant for us at all. He’s talking to somebody else and he’s also talking to men. He’s saying, You be a man, you show traditional masculinity, you take care of your woman, so she doesn’t have to work. You let her be kept. You put her on a pedestal, put her in a cage, too, but put her on a pedestal. And so I think that when it is important for us to not because, you know, people are outraged and like, Oh, that’s so crazy that he would talk about suburban housewives. In this way, it’s not a term of derision. So if we pathologize this behavior, we will never understand it. We have to understand, to try to understand it for what it is outside of the value system that we have and recognize why it is that people are doing this. Why is he doing it? Why does it work? Because calls to patriarchy and race combined, calls to White patriarchy are highly effective on men. Why do you think men voters support him so much? And why do you think there’s a gender gap? There’s about a 10% gender gap among Latinos, where men are more supportive. The same is true for African Americans. The same is true for Asian Americans. That tells you that patriarchy is at work, that traditional values are at work, and he’s working it.
57:06
Adrian Pantoja:
Evelyn, your thoughts on African American voters who support Trump and that gender gap is there?
Evelyn Simien:
Well, I actually want to speak to something Jane just mentioned, because my mind went to show the behavior we’ve witnessed on stage during these debates, and how immediately following the debate between the vice presidential candidates, Pence and Kamala Harris, the commentators often observed the way in which or the frequency at which Kamala Harris was being interrupted. And there was this assertion that White suburban women would sort of get how offensive that moment was. And there’s so many times that I feel like we look through our very privileged sort of educated or woke lens, because you get that moment or that experience, by virtue of the fact that you are a career woman in the context of corporate America or academia, where you’re being cut off in similar fashion. You are a woman that has typically obtained a degree or degrees and you’re working opposite male, a male supervisor, or fellow employee, and you get that moment on stage by virtue of your class and level of education. And so it’s from a position of privilege that we recognize the degree in which that’s a masculine performance on the part of Pence, as he’s constantly interrupting, and insisting that she answer his question, not the question of the moderator, right? That he in fact, insisted more than once, “No, I want you to answer my question,” and almost take the place of the moderator. But also, my mind goes back to 2016 and when Donald Trump is outright stalking Hillary Clinton during the town hall. That is another gender moment where I’m like, What, do we need to call security? That’s a moment that I read as potentially threatening, such that security needs to be put on alert, but not everybody reads that moment and interprets it that way, right?
I see it through a gendered lens. I see it in terms of male privilege, and even in the debate between Biden and Trump to read Trump’s performance as an act of bullying, as indicative of his own sort of level of incompetence, as this is a strategy. So not to hear Biden’s performance, to hear Biden’s position on the issue, he’s constantly interrupting his opponent. And I’ve gone so far as to suggest that he is sort of your stereotypical White male privilege. If he loses the election, he might burn down the White House. It’s sort of like that guy that is so upset that his rent goes up, and he’s been evicted, that he’s going to deface the property, you know. And so that’s the kind of unwieldly character we have in the White House. I’ll stop there but as I was thinking about Jane’s comments, my mind went to those examples. And again, not every woman, not every person is going to read these moments throughout the campaign, through the lens of gender, race and class. And we sit here from a position of privilege that we sort of recognize, and it’s really up to us to almost translate, if at all possible, translate for the American people if we are so able, because patriarchy, classism, racism runs deep. And we’ve all been socialized to the same educational systems, right? We’re all the product of the same educational systems. And we weren’t taught about White fragility, we weren’t equipped with the tools that let’s say, women’s studies and ethnic studies offer many of us.
1:02:30
Adrian Pantoja:
Great, thank you for that. I’m looking at the time and there’s so many more questions I’d love to ask and especially because I have you guys here and the audience. Those that are tuning in live and those that will be watching this later would love to hear so which ones should I pick? Let’s just go very quickly: turnout. Evelyn, the African American turnout was high in 2008, 2012. And then it dipped in 2016. There’s a lot of reasons why. Some would argue Barack Obama was not on the ticket. They didn’t connect with Hillary Clinton. Others argue it was a mobilization story. Others argue it was a border obstacle story. What is your prediction in terms of turnout for 2020? Will it go back up after that decline in 2016?
Evelyn Simien:
I’m hopeful, I’m optimistic that it’s going to be at an all-time high. On some news, pundits have predicted that it’s going to exceed what we saw during Barack Obama’s victory. I am sort of of a similar mindset. But what keeps me up at night is what Victoria mentioned earlier, voter suppression, and the degree in which the Republican Party and others are heavily invested in suppressing the Black, Brown people colored vote in this election. And so how many ballots will be thrown out of people of color is what’s disconcerting for me, and to what degree they may not have the capacity to wait in long lines for countless hours. And so I’m hopeful, I’m optimistic that turnout will be at an all-time high. But at the same time, I’m concerned about the various methods that are being used to suppress the Black vote.
Adrian Pantoja:
Jane, Asian American turnout, what’s it going to look like in 2020?
Jane Junn:
It’s hard to say I mean, Asian American turnout is pretty low, relatively speaking, to other groups and it’s about you know, if you think about, if you recognize the fact that about 75% of Asian American adults are foreign born, you can see that basically, eligible voters are a much smaller proportion of that. So even if you think about how many people could possibly vote, the barriers to voting not only in terms of language, but accessibility and knowledge are also low. I’m not sure that we’re going to see a huge increase in turnout, I think where it’ll happen, not across the board, it will happen among young voters. I think that young Asian Americans under 30, are exceptionally politically active and interested now as a function, not only of anti-Trump activities, and sentiment, young Asian American voters are disproportionately Democratic, though there are Republican Asian American voters as well. But I think that they’ll be driven in many ways by the electoral fortunes of other candidates on the ballot as well. So the big states with Asian American voters, obviously California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Washington, Virginia, but we’ve got locations also such as Texas and Florida, with growing populations of Asian American voters. And I think the activation on the ground of these voters by not just the Democratic Party, but racial justice organizations, is working. And I do want to note that being a person of color is not the same across these groups. It’s important to recognize that we’re not only just talking about a White supremacy, here, we’re talking about an essence, a long-standing anti-Blackness positionality of the United States of America, which isn’t to say that other groups have not also been discriminated against and subjugated. But it’s happened in a different way and I think, to a very different degree. Nevertheless, the events of surrounding George Floyd’s murder, and in addition to that, that kind of awakening of racial justice will affect Asian American voters as well. Principally, I think, among younger and more well educated Asian American voters, I think they’re going to turn out heavy for Democrats.
1:07:01
Adrian Pantoja:
Victoria, what about turnout among Latinos? What are you seeing?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Right, so Adrian, we know that there’s only been, I think, two instances in the last 50-60 years where Latino presidential turnout has cracked that 50% ceiling. I’m cautiously optimistic that we will; we saw come close in the last several cycles. As I mentioned previously in our discussion, the 2018 midterm election, and midterms are infamous for low turnout, we saw Latinos along with other voting groups come out in record numbers. So I think that my usually pessimistic view of Latino turnout that we still need to get out there, we got to push ourselves more, I think in 2018, we saw a glimmer of the fact that the momentum is starting to gain.
That being said, I don’t think we’re going to see transformational changes overnight. I don’t think we’re going to go from like 40, 49% to 65%. But I do think that we’re going to at least cross that threshold. And in particular, in areas where we’ve seen a lot of energy and mobilization (I you know, I’m biased; I’m originally from Arizona even though I’m Texan by marriage), but there’s some really interesting stuff happening in Arizona. I’m not going to say it’s the exact same thing as the results of Prop. 187, but I do see SB 1070 having mobilized young Latinos in Arizona, and really supercharging this environment. So I think that it’s going to be interesting to see how young Latinos are mobilized because this is really the bulk of the Latino electorate. On average, non-Latino voters are in their 40s. Latinos are in their young 20s; 20 to 23, I think is the official average age of the Latino. So I think in looking at turnout, it’s crossing the threshold, and if we can get those younger voters.
Adrian Pantoja:
Okay. Let’s go ahead and go to the questions that have been submitted. One regarding barriers to voting is about felony disenfranchisement. The person asks, “Can felony disenfranchisement be considered a form of voter suppression? How does felony disenfranchisement play a role in states that have other voter suppression tactics? That seemed like it could play an important role in in swing states.” Good question on felony disenfranchisement, and communities of color, Latino, Black communities are heavily impacted by this. Anybody want to take that?
1:09:44
Jane Junn:
Definitely voter suppression, a coordinated effort at it. There have been coordinated efforts to undo that. There have been some like cases blocked by the courts, federal courts, of course, in this case, and so I think that it’s just another tool in the toolbox of disenfranchising voters. Yes, I think that is true.
Adrian Pantoja:
So for the person that submitted that question, what is that documentary? Is it 13TH? Great documentary on the rise of the prison industrial complex and voter suppression, so I would encourage you to watch that. Sorry, Victoria cut you off.
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
I was just going to say that it’s this direct form of disenfranchisement, the law saying you can’t vote either forever or for X amount of years. So that’s disenfranchisement in its purest sense. But it’s also disenfranchisement in the sense of it being a poll tax, because in some instances, like in Florida, you can get your rights reinstated after X number of years or a certain amount of time. But in some instances, you have to pay to get that right. So if you’re someone who works a minimum wage job, doesn’t have a job because it’s hard to get a job with a felony on your record, how are you going to pay those fines, right? So that is essentially a poll tax. It’s not like you have to pay the dollar at the poll, like we did back in the 50s and 60s here in South Texas. But you have to still pay to pass the vote. So I think I see felon disenfranchisement in many cases as doubly disenfranchising.
1:11:18
Adrian Pantoja:
Evelyn, thoughts on felony disenfranchisement?
Evelyn Simien:
I would just agree with Jane and Victoria. Connecticut is one of the few states where felons can regain their voting rights. But that was after several years of local activism. Most certainly, I also recommend the documentary 13TH, Black and Brown people are disproportionately over-represented in the criminal justice system, and so they are directly impacted by this denial of the right to vote once they’ve been convicted of a felony.
Adrian Pantoja:
There’s another question which I love. “I cannot argue that the Republican Party remains the party of White supremacy. But is the panel confident that White supremacy issues do not permeate the Democratic Party?
Jane Junn:
Not confident at all? No, they do. Of course they do. They manifest in a different way. But of course they do. It’s like the fishes in the water.
Adrian Pantoja:
That was easy. So yeah, there’s no controversy there. Yeah, this is not let’s beat up the Republican Party. Believe me there’s blame to go around. NPR reports this a.m. that a significant percentage of Latinx voters are still undecided. What’s happening here? I think I know what’s happening but Victoria, do you want to?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
Well, Adrian, we were we’re on a call recently, where we were addressing this very topic. And part of it is just understanding the nature of the Latino electorate. We’ve seen that historically. Latinos, just a couple of election cycles ago, the largest group of Latinos identified as independents or leaners, not necessarily one party or the other, even though there is a larger leaning toward the Democratic Party. So all that to say that there’s always been this robust middle among Latinos. So I think you have this along with the other factors. We talked about why there might be a pull away from the Democratic Party, why Latinos may feel cross pressures, whether it’s because of foreign policy issues, they may like the democratic agenda on the economy or health care, but they are very strongly opposed to communism and socialism for policy reasons. So I think the cross pressures, plus the traditional fact that Latinos are less socialized than other voters with the exception of Asian American voters. So Latinos don’t have that tradition of my grandfather voted Democrat and my great-great grandfather voted Republican or Democrat, they don’t have that traditional socialization that comes with a long standing community here, the United States. So again, it’s additive. You put all of this together and when I see the independence, it’s not all that surprising.
Adrian Pantoja:
We’ve come to an end. There’s a lot of young people that are tuning into this that may feel encouraged watching this, maybe they’ll feel discouraged watching this. But what advice would you give to young people who are not sure how to read this election, are maybe on the fence about participating? Any thoughts to young people about just US politics? All four of us have devoted our lives to American politics, as ugly, as exclusivist, as White supremacist as it is, where there, we do it, we you know, it’s hard to say that we don’t love it. Maybe we hate it oftentimes, but what advice would you give to young people? Anybody?
1:15:02
Evelyn Simien:
Get involved. I work with a lot of young students who, especially pre-COVID, worked campaigns, local campaigns, did political internships. Really get involved in the process, work polls. As much as we talk about voter suppression, as a young person, it was an easy way for me to make money in a day, I worked the polls as a graduate student. And when I moved to Connecticut, and I went from being the person that delivered those ballots in the steel box that had the chads, you know, and we went to sleep, thinking, Gore won, and then we woke up the next day, I learned that George W. Bush had won. And I remember thinking to myself, the reason why I elected to be a Democratic election judge in the state of Indiana, is because it’s the highest paying position, and you didn’t do anything. You just sat there and observed the process, and I got paid 100 bucks for it, or a little over $100. Then when I moved to Connecticut, I became that person called a Democratic election checker. So I was the person that looked at your driver’s license, and found your address, your name and checked it off. Then I was the person, I don’t know what you call this person, I sat next to the box where you put your ballot in, and I gave you that sticker, “I voted today.” I always elected to do that, I found out which position was the higher paying position and the easiest position for which I didn’t have to do a whole lot of work.
But I did find it to be fun. But I was always the only young person that was there and everyone else were, they were senior citizens who routinely did this year after year after year. But that year that we could write in Ross Perot as a third-party candidate, was when I really felt my role was important. Because the next morning those boxes, those steel boxes, were found in random places and I had to hand count the ballots. Me and the Republican election judge had to sit down and hand count those ballots, and hand write the number of votes, put in a steel box, and we both had to escort that steel box together to like the local city hall.
And it was in the aftermath of that election that I woke up the next morning thinking, “Oh! Actually I really had an important job!” when it came to an election. So I encourage young people to really get involved in the process. And maybe one day, run for office yourself.
1:18:07
Adrian Pantoja:
Run for office. Victoria, what kind of advice would you give young people?
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:
So I give this advice to all of my students and to anyone who will listen is read, listen, watch on both sides. Right? So if you’re a Democrat, watch your MSNBC, read your New York Times, but then also tune into Fox. I’m not saying you have to watch it for a long time. But tune into Fox, read your Breitbart. Listen to a little bit of talk radio, and same for Republicans. If you’re reading over that crossover, because we live in these bubble worlds and we need to at least understand and know what is beyond our bubble worlds. I’m not saying like it, I’m not saying believe it, I’m not saying enjoy it. But I’m saying be aware and be informed of what is beyond your immediate bubble.
Adrian Pantoja:
It’s good advice. Jane?
Jane Junn:
I’m going to take it one step further then, right behind Evelyn and Vicki. And that is not only to be active, to get out there and do something to learn, try to persuade somebody, first try to understand them. And then try to persuade them; have a conversation. And I don’t mean that you will be successful in doing so; try to persuade them that they say it isn’t worth it. Give them good reasons why it is. I’m imagining you students at Pitzer College are among the top, top college students in the United States; if you weren’t, you wouldn’t have been admitted to Pitzer. So there you are, a bunch of thinkers and doers. And I think that what’s important is that whether it’s Thanksgiving (I’m not sure whether you guys are ending before or after Thanksgiving), when you go home and sit across from your Aunt Marge, your cousin Stephanie or your Uncle Mike, and they don’t have the same beliefs as you do because apparently Thanksgiving could be hard this year. not only because we have to eat through masks, but because you’re going to have a mixed party at your table, most likely. And under those circumstances, I think it’s important to try to persuade people to think about defending democracy, about supporting democracy. And that means talking through ideas about things that you don’t always agree on. But that there are some things that we do agree on, and things that, and if these get out of hand (these are the things that keep me up at night), the things we should agree on, are not to be complicit when someone is breaking the law, when somebody is doing something immoral, or amoral, not to be complicit by being a bystander. Do something, say something, be active. Second, don’t be blind to malfeasance, don’t just turn your head away and say, nothing I can do about that, try to do something about it.
And instead of being antisocial, going off into your own bubble as Vicki was saying, into your own sort of individualistic self-protecting behavior, what is it that we’re here for? We’re here to support one another and understand one another and coexist, even when we disagree. So I think it’s important to take the lessons that Evelyn and Vicki mentioned, and to keep going through that by trying to talk to other people you disagree with trying to persuade them to do the right thing. And that right thing is to continue to support the, I think, genius of a government that we have. Is it imperfect? Absolutely, yes. Let’s not forget what Aristotle wrote in The Politic, right? It’s the least good form of government, the best of all the bad kinds. So I think, the future, the political future is in your hands, and I hope you do a better job with it than we did.
1:21:45
Adrian Pantoja:
That is great advice. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. It is a privilege and an honor to have these distinguished guests here. I wish they were in person, so that we could celebrate, go out for some drinks after this panel, but we’ll have to save that for another time. So thank you, everyone, for joining us. And I look forward to seeing how this turns out. And stay tuned. There will be some post-election analysis sometime in November. Hopefully, things will be nice and wrapped up in a bow. The good thing about history is that it’s never that nice and clean. So if things are more or less wrapped up, maybe we’ll have some insights as far as the outcome of the election. So thank you, everyone, and goodbye.
