Here's Amy's explanation of why that question to Warren is so important.
Miriam
Elizabeth Warren Won't Admit It, but the Primary System Is Racist
Elizabeth Warren Won't Admit It, but the Primary System Is Racist
Screen shot / YouTube
As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, and the Democratic Party
even more so, the presidential nomination process remains heavily weighted
by two states that are among the whitest in the nation, Iowa and New
Hampshire. When we asked about this racial disparity at a presidential
candidate forum that the "Democracy Now!" news hour co-hosted in South
Carolina last week, Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren bristled,
replying, "I'm just a player in the game." Warren and the other Democratic
candidates need to answer why their party's primary process favors these two
small, rural, aging and almost entirely white states, and they need to
explain how this "game" that weeds out candidates so early in the process is
anything other than a glaring example of systemic racism.
The forum was held at South Carolina State University, an HBCU (historically
black college or university) in Orangeburg, S.C. Here is the question and
answer, in full:
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Warren, just 30 seconds left. But speaking about racial
injustice, do you think the order of the primary states should change? You
have Iowa and New Hampshire -
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Wait, let me make - let me just - before you finish,
are you actually going to ask me to sit here and criticize Iowa and New
Hampshire?
AMY GOODMAN: No, I'm asking about the order.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: No, that is what Iowa and New Hampshire are all
about.
AMY GOODMAN: But let me just ask. They're two of the whitest states in the
country, and then we move to South Carolina with a very significant
population of people of color, and it means the candidates spend so much of
their time catering to those first two states. Overall, do you think that
should change?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Look, I'm just a player in the game on this one. And
I am delighted to be in South Carolina. Thank you.
Warren's irritated reaction to the question betrays the Democratic Party's
rigid orthodoxy on first-in-the-nation status for both the Iowa caucus and
the New Hampshire primary.
In 1972, Iowa Democrats moved the caucus up to Jan. 24, to give themselves
extra time to process the results from all the precincts (currently
numbering 1,678). That early date made the Iowa caucuses the nation's first
indicator of each candidate's standing, and thus attracted extraordinary
media attention.
Sensing they were on to something, the Iowa Democratic and Republican
parties agreed to always hold their caucuses early, and on the same day, to
maximize national press coverage. New Hampshire then managed to cement its
hold as the first primary state, immediately following the Iowa caucuses.
This has been the status quo since the 1970s, but nothing says it has to
stay that way.
MSNBC played our exchange with Warren for Democratic presidential hopeful
Julian Castro, who responded,
"I actually believe that we do need to change the order of the states,
because I don't believe that we are the same country that we were in 1972. .
Our country has changed a lot in those 50 years, the Democratic Party has
changed a lot. Demographically it is not reflective of the United States as
a whole, certainly not of the Democratic Party. And I believe that other
states should have their chance. So yes, of course, we need to find other
states. I don't believe that forever we should be married to Iowa and New
Hampshire going first."
There are already four majority-minority states: California, Hawaii, New
Mexico and Texas, along with the District of Columbia. Holding caucuses or
primaries in these states first would likely have a dramatic effect on the
outcome.
The lead-up to both Iowa and New Hampshire now are so long, with candidates,
in some cases, spending more than a year making frequent, extended campaign
swings through both states. Imagine if they were spending that much time in
more diverse states, like South Carolina.
Elizabeth Warren, to her credit, did travel to Orangeburg to participate in
this first-ever presidential candidate forum on environmental justice. The
forum was co-moderated by Mustafa Santiago Ali, former Environmental
Protection Agency official, now at the National Wildlife Federation. At the
top of the forum, Mustafa defined environmental justice:
"Environmental justice is the disproportionate impacts that continue to
happen in our communities. The things that no one else wants, they place
them in communities of color, low-income communities and indigenous lands.
They become the sacrifice zones, the sacrifice zones for coal-fired power
plants, for certified animal feeding operations, for waste treatment
facilities, for unhealthy housing."
The concerns of the first states in the presidential nomination process
disproportionately impact the agenda for the entire race. Democracy is about
representation. The primary and caucus system needs to be reformed now.
Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan
Amy Goodman
