What lies behind Kamala Harris’ underperformance with Latino and African American electorates compared to past Democratic presidential tickets? The issue gained traction following a recent New York Times/Siena survey that revealed Harris obtaining a mere 57 percent of the Hispanic vote, trailing Joe Biden’s estimated 63% haul in 2020. Moreover, she secured 78 percent of the African American vote, trailing Biden’s estimated tally by 15 points for the same year.
The Democratic Party appears to be miscalculating the complexion of the American electorate in its assumptions about race and ethnicity. The party seems to have presumed a monolithic voting bloc where people of color are concerned, concluding that strategic actions which echo these racial identities are key to winning their allegiance. This is exemplified in the appointment of a Black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Supreme Court in 2022.
The party’s strategy assumes that showing a progressive stance on every racial issue will secure the loyalty of voters of color. However, it fails to see that many voters of color worry about issues like crime and unauthorized immigration, among other things. As such, the underlying argument about lenient immigration policies causing a border crisis is identified as the principal issue.
Specifically, there are three policies that come to the fore: the temporary cessation of deportations at the beginning of the term pending a broad review of immigration issues; a parole program admitting 500,000 individuals; and the extension of asylum standards in 2021 to include victims of domestic violence or criminal gangs.
It’s undeniable that during Biden’s tenure there was a significant surge in the number of people crossing the US-Mexico border to apply for asylum. This includes individuals who entered the country illegally, who are still legally entitled to apply for asylum upon arrival. However, the sheer volume of these arrivals became overwhelming, leading most voters to perceive it as a crisis.
The fact that border crossings skyrocketed to such a degree even during Trump’s administration—despite his stringent policies—begs the question whether there’s anything that either Democrats or Republicans could practically do to limit crosses to a level the public would deem secure and acceptable. After all, for many migrants from impoverished and/or violence-riddled countries, the severity of their conditions at home is such that even a harsh journey, possibly ending in deportation, seems a better option.
Of note, Biden’s immigration policy wasn’t exactly lenient. His attempt to temporarily halt deportations was cut short by a judge after only five days. Furthermore, Biden extended a health-related policy from the Trump administration, known as Title 42, that enables the government to promptly expel asylum seekers without a hearing until 2023. As soon as Title 42 expired, the administration introduced a series of new policies aimed at curbing illegal crossings.
Despite changes in administration, the pace of deportations during Biden’s term has mirrored that of Trump’s. During Trump’s term, the Democratic Party upheld the banner of diversity and inclusivity. However, disentangling its brand from being perceived as broadly pro-immigrant may neither be attainable nor desirable.
The challenge lies in striking a careful balance. The American public’s stance appears to be that undocumented immigrants are acceptable if they are already well-established within the U.S. but not while in the process of crossing the border- often the only means available to gain entry. Layered on top of this are voters’ general desires for inclusion, fair treatment, and law and order, and their fluctuating emphasis on these aspects depending on the administration in power.
This complex situation does not propose a simple, clear-cut solution that would justify the Democratic Party abandoning what is perhaps its greatest enduring advantage since the civil rights era – the predilection of the public that it symbolizes a progressively diverse democracy.
A considerable segment of U.S. voters lean toward these progressive values and have proven to form a triumphant coalition. These voters espouse views such as advocating for undocumented immigrants to be allowed a pathway to citizenship, and lauding the idea of a Black woman’s appointment to the Supreme Court as timely, underscoring their belief these developments represent the ideal workings of America.
Hence, the debate is clearly not straightforward, and while there is room for the Democratic Party to reassess its strategy, it does not necessarily imply a complete strategy overhaul. Instead, it should involve a nuanced understanding of the diverse views held by voters of color and a reassessment of the intertwining of immigration policy and voter sentiment.
It becomes evident that the party’s assumptions about monolithic voting patterns among voters of color are not accurate reflections of the diverse and multifaceted concerns shared by these demographics. This does call for a proper diagnosis and a more targeted strategy that addresses these concerns while maintaining the core values of the party.
It remains fundamental for the Democratic party to understand and address the issues that resonate with voters of color. Understanding that these voters do not constitute a homogeneous bloc would be the first step towards bridging this gap. A one-size-fits-all approach that categorizes people of color and assumes their political loyalties based on their racial identities is outdated.
The Democratic Party must enact a delicate balancing act to accommodate diverse constituents and their needs effectively, while ensuring the maintenance of a sense of unity and common purpose. This includes recognizing and honoring different policy priorities while embodying pluralism, diversity, and progressive values.
In conclusion, the lessons drawn from the Harris campaign bear critical insights for future Democratic strategies. Crucially, the party needs continued engagement with voters of color and progressive demographics, while ensuring that the party’s stance reflects an evolving, multiracial democracy that caters to diverse issues, including immigration and reform.