Often a single decision illuminates a much larger systemic societal problem. Yesterday progressive powerhouse political action committee Emily’s List endorsed an inexperienced, but wealthy, white woman over a more experienced, popular and progressive Latina who had previously received the organization’s unwavering support. This specific decision by Emily’s List is both a cautionary tale and a case study. It illuminates why, in 2016, leadership in America, including within the progressive movement and Democratic Party, is still disproportionately and overwhelmingly white while the rapidly growing ranks of people of color are blocked from rising into positions of leadership.
White people, who make up 62% of the U.S. population, are grossly over-represented in nearly all positions of power and authority in America. In corporate America 96% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are white. In the entertainment industry 95% of the leading actors in television shows are white. In news media 85% of all editors are white. And in government and politics 90% of all elected officials are white. The problem in the political sphere transcends ideological boundaries as the leadership of the progressive movement and Democratic politics (a certain Commander in Chief aside) is also overwhelmingly white — despite the fact that 46% of Democratic voters in 2012 were people of color.
Why does this inequality exist and persist? Often those who make decisions about who to hire, fund or endorse, say, “we couldn’t find any qualified people of color,” or “they lack experience,” or “they don’t step up and present themselves for leadership,” or “we have to do a better job improving education in our schools.” Even if these excuses were valid (and, by and large they are not, but that’s a topic for another column), they certainly don’t apply in the case of Emily’s List’s decision to pick the less qualified white woman over the more experienced and well-known Latina.
In the current race for the congressional seat to represent Las Vegas, there are four Democratic candidates, two of whom are pro-choice women (electing pro-choice Democratic women is Emily’s List’s stated mission). Latina Lucy Flores is an attorney who served in the state legislature, ran as the Democratic Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2014, and became a national face of the pro-choice movement when, in 2013, she bravely and emotionally shared her story publicly about having an abortion at a young age. (Full disclosure, as I have done with many candidates of color, I have enthusiastically supported Flores in this race and in her past races). Susie Lee, a white woman, is a wealthy philanthropist who has never held elective office, never run for office, and trails Flores in the polls by 20 points. Lee had originally planned to run in a neighboring district, but chose to enter the race where Flores was running because that district has more Democrats. The district has more Democrats because it has more people of color. Lee does have one thing that Flores doesn’t — a network of rich white friends. Nearly half of the money Lee raised in 2015 came from individuals who contributed the maximum amount allowed per person of $2700. That was on top of the $150k Lee gave to her own campaign.
This is where one decision becomes a case study for the entire progressive movement. Faced with a situation where a talented, experienced, promising Latina was poised for leadership, an organization like Emily’s List could have done three things. They could have gone to their national network of 3 million members and helped Flores raise the kind of money that would have attracted additional donors and given her a leg up and meaningful momentum. That was, after all, the founding purpose of the organization, whose website says, “The name ‘EMILY’s List’ was an acronym for ‘Early Money Is Like Yeast’ (i.e., it makes the dough rise). The saying is a reference to a convention of political fundraising that receiving major donations early in a race is helpful in attracting other, later donors.”
The second course of action would have been to stay neutral and not engage in the race. If, for whatever reason, they found Flores’ prospects discouraging, they could have just stayed out and let the best person win. The third option, the one they chose, was to tip the scales and throw their considerable weight behind the only white candidate in the race.
By choosing to abandon the person they had previously supported, stray from their founding principle of raising money for promising female candidates, and cast their lot with the inexperienced Caucasian candidate, Emily’s List is not only undermining their own stated goal of elevating Latina leaders, but they are showing the entire country how to actively block the elevation of talented leaders of color. The dissonance of their decision is accentuated by the fact that just eight days before rejecting Flores, the organization announced, with great fanfare, an initiative “to increase the number of Latinas in elected office.”
Unfortunately, Emily’s List, whose leadership is overwhelmingly — if not exclusively — white, is not alone in standing in the way of electing talented Democrats of color. When Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski announced her retirement last year, two qualified congressmembers stepped forward to run for that seat — Chris Van Hollen, a white man, and Donna Edwards, an African American woman (to its credit, Emily’s List is strongly backing Edwards). In the entire history of this country, only one Black woman has served in the U.S. Senate (Carol Mosely Braun, elected in 1992). Maryland, where nearly 40% of the Democrats are African American, is one of the Blackest states in the country, and this race presents one of the best chance in decades (if not centuries) to elect another Black female senator. But rather than let that race take its course, or, better yet, get behind the African American candidate, the top Democrat in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid, threw his support behind Van Hollen just hours after Mikulski’s announcement. Again, presented with an opportunity to elevate and advance a highly qualified leader of color in a jurisdiction where the electoral prospects are promising for candidates of color, a powerful white Democratic leader placed an obstacle in the path of the candidate of color.
With progressive friends like these, racial justice and equality will be a long time coming in America.
Talk is cheap and change is hard. Overcoming centuries of discrimination and inequity requires fresh thinking, determination, commitment and putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. As the Flores and Edwards situations show, Democratic and other progressive leaders are still failing to embrace this nation’s demographic revolution at the precise moment when they need to rise to the occasion and solidify the potential structural advantages presented by America’s profound racial transformation. Opposing and blocking the rise of highly qualified leaders of color is absolutely the opposite of what Emily’s List and others should be doing.
Steve Phillips is the author of the New York Times bestseller Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority.