Reparations: Are Democrats Handing Victory to Trump in 2020?
(OPINION)
Is it wise for a political candidate to support reparation payments to Black Americans to atone for the sins of slavery?
Currently there are a few candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination who support paying Black Americans reparations as compensation, presumably for the hardships endured by their ancestors more than 150 years ago and/or to put today’s Black population where it would be had not their ancestors endured the economic shackles of slavery.
Given the potentially explosive nature of the subject, however, is it even responsible for any candidate to even suggest that a serious discussion be held in Congress to consider the matter?
Initially should be noted that there are overwhelming practical complexities in figuring out just how a fair reparations program would work. For example: (i) who would get paid; (ii) how much; and (iii) how would one have to go about proving entitlement to reparations? Conversely, and probably more explosively how would we determine: (A) who, exactly, has to pay; (B) how much do they have to pay: and (iv) how would these determinations be made and on the basis of what proof? Will we have to figure out the ancestry of each Black and White person in America, determine where their ancestors lived and whether they were slaves, whether they owned slaves and, if so, how many and for how long etc.? Will Northern Whites have to pay reparations? Or just Southerners? Or, more precisely, just “some” Southerners? It is very important to remember that most Southerners did not own slaves even prior to the Civil War. Is it fair or just to make any non-slave owning citizen pay any reparations if none of their ancestors owned slaves? On the other hand, many Black folks have ancestors that lived in the North and were free men. Is it fair for them to receive reparations? Or is that unjust enrichment? So, how is actual slave ownership going to be determined? Will the government have to figure out exactly how many slaves were owned by each ancestor and for how long? Is their information going to be reliable? How good has the record keeping been? Will a large regulatory agency have to be established? Will a regulatory body or the courts handle factual disputes regarding ancestry determinations?
Candidates and political strategists should also remind themselves of one simple but vital point. The White population, and its voting pool, is much, much larger than the Black population and its voters. So, given that fact alone, how much sense does it make to potentially offend the larger voting block in order to obtain the support the smaller one? Most people would probably say supporting reparations under such circumstances would appear to be ill-advised, at least from a political perspective.
Naturally, however, the situation must be more complicated than such a cursory analysis would indicate. Clearly candidates supporting reparations feel that they need to set themselves apart by showing support for a cause that will get the votes of an important segment of their party’s political base—or, in this case, the Black vote, in order to get the Democratic nomination for President.
But these are strange, and some would argue, dangerous times for our increasingly polarized and fragmented democracy. Many Democrats despise and fear President Trump and are virtually united in their abhorrence of his Presidency.
There’s an old adage in politics and warfare attributable to many sources, including Julius Caesar and Machiavelli, that in order to win on the battlefield against a potentially superior force a general should “divide and conquer” the enemy. Will President Trump use divisive race issues to divide and conquer Democrats. Or worse, forget President Trump: Are Democrats shooting themselves in the foot by dividing themselves and spontaneously raising the reparations issue?
How do the Democrats plan to win the strategically vital South which would obviously have citizens who would be most offended by such adoption of a slavery-reparations program since it is their ancestors who would most likely have been the owners of slaves? But beyond the South, how do proponents plan to win even predominately White areas of the rest of the Nation when, in fact, in most areas, White voters greatly outnumber Black voters? Probably even more importantly, will the promise of reparations put the crucial states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the Democratic camp? While we admittedly have not done an in-depth analysis of the voting rolls of those states, do those states really have a significantly larger pool of Black voters who would actually benefit from a reparations program? The guess here is no. And, if not, if the reparations issue sticks like glue to any Democratic nominee during the general election, it could spell disaster in November of 2020. Remember, those are Northern (non-slave owning) states, that would appear to have many White blue-collar voters. And, they would not appear to have a proportionally higher number of black voters. Moreover, the guess here is, that Wisconsin at least, probably has even a smaller Black population, proportionally speaking, than America generally.
Given the above facts alone, one has to wonder if Democratic candidates proposing reparations are engaging in foolish and even dangerous pandering just to secure the nomination, when doing so, carries with it the frightening possibility that any discussion of reparations might push more fence straddling Whites, if not into the extreme right wing of the American polity—then at least to vote for Trump—yet again.
Putting politics aside for a moment, there are also more than a few fundamental and vexing problems with supporting reparations to compensate Blacks for antebellum slavery in the South. It sounds odd to say, but very importantly, it must be pointed out that that from a strictly legal perspective, slavery was legal in the South. That was why the Civil War was fought. Lawyers would point out that slave owners were doing nothing illegal, or in their view immoral. And remember, the South didn’t invent slavery. In fact, various emperors, kings, conquerors, dictators and many countries have supported the institution of slavery since the beginning of mankind’s recorded history.
And, to further complicate the issue of whether enacting a reparations program is fair at all one needs to remember that Whites weren’t the only ones involved in slavery. Thus, one might ask: What effect on deciding whether reparations are fair to begin with do the following factors have? (i) The fact that many slaves were brought over to the America only after being captured by hostile neighboring tribesman, who were indeed also Black, in Africa who cooperated with White slave traders and were an integral sending slaves to America? In other words, Black’s themselves were in many instances, complicit in and cooperated in the slave trade; (ii) that Black’s themselves, not only this country, but elsewhere, have at times owned slaves? (In this regard, consider the Moors of Spain who owned White Christian slaves. Free Black’s in America owned slaves and, and perhaps, even a few White indentured servants). The very real and unfortunate fact is, that slavery was a recognized institution and was not thought of as immoral for most of human history. The Egyptian Pyramids, the Great Wall of China and who knows how many foreign and ancient roads, bridges, building and other structures were built by slaves. Is it fair to judge our ancestors by contemporary standards that have changed? Hindsight is 20/20.
Moreover, there is also another important factor to consider. And that is the very fact that slavery was legal in the South, makes the slave owners less responsible for the harm done to Blacks, at least in some instances. In this regard, consider how very, very tough, it would have been for Southern plantation owner A to compete against Southern plantation owner B to sell cotton (or other goods for that matter), if B had slaves and A did not. Would A have much choice but to buy and use slaves, even if he, A, really felt that slavery was wrong. That would certainly have presented A with a very grisly Hobson’s Choice. Plantation owner A would almost certainly be put out of business unless he decided, in this case against his will, to use slaves instead of hiring and paying free wage earners.
Of course, we all rightfully accept today that slavery is and was a reprehensible social institution that caused great suffering and hardship on those who were unfortunate enough to be enslaved. And all right- minded people (and most Americans are) are all grateful that it was eradicated by the Union victory in the Civil War. But that doesn’t change the fact that slavery is not, and was not, a racial institution. It was a very bad institution practiced at one time or another by all races over all other races. It was NOT race that separated master and who was the slave. It was those who had the military and economic power to force other men to work for them, against their will, without just compensation. (We will mention here, of course, that many terrible atrocities were committed by masters against their slaves, but, with all due respect, these atrocities were suffered by all slaves of all races at one time or another during the course of human history.)
Slavery did not become illegal until, arguably, the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and obviously even then, the issue was still unsettled until final Union victory in 1865 and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in that same year. Up until that time, slavery was legal in the South. So how can one implement a reparation program if there was (putting morality to the side) no wrong to begin with—at least from a technical legal perspective? Under such circumstances aren’t reparations merely vindictive ex post facto payback? And regardless of whether it is or isn’t, won’t White folks who foot the bill, feel that they are paying for something that their ancestors did or maybe didn’t do (depending on whether their ancestors actually owned slaves more than 150 years ago)? Remember, reparations, if required, would be making today’s innocent people pay for something they themselves did not do. And aren’t the feelings of a majority of the population on such a potentially explosive issue important?
Given the foregoing, and aside from the important social and political considerations, isn’t enacting a reparations program in fact highly discriminatory? Wouldn’t a reparations program violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Non-Blacks would certainly feel discriminated against.
Moreover, haven’t large portions of the Black population already been compensated, at least to some degree by a multitude of federal and state programs that attempt to eradicate poverty generally, regardless of race? We are speaking here of programs like Section 8 rental housing benefits, food stamps Medicaid, and welfare programs. What about unemployment insurance and of course, Social Security? How do these facts factor in. And does it really make any difference that those programs aren’t focused solely on benefiting Blacks? Just because the governmental benefits of programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8 Rental Assistance, unemployment compensation, food stamps, CHIPS and other welfare programs weren’t created to cure the burdensome effects of slavery per se, isn’t the fact that the benefits of those programs are paid to rectify the very same types of problems that are assumed to have been created, at least to some extent, by slavery sufficient “compensation”? So, does the name of the compensation program matter when programs exist already to that seek to rectify virtually the same problems that slavery would have created? Wouldn’t reparations on top of these programs amount to double dipping by the recipients of the reparations?
Moreover, in determining the appropriate amount of reparations doesn’t one have to consider what the difference is between two economic points. One is, of course, where they are today economically speaking. But what’s the other point? Is it where recipient would be if they weren’t brought to America in the first place. In other words, where they would be if they had stayed in Africa? With all due respect, (and it pains this writer to make this point), but if the idea is to put Black folks in the same economic position to where they would be if their ancestors weren’t brought here to be slaves, shouldn’t one ask: Well, if their ancestors weren’t brought here and they were still in Africa, what would their standard of living be today? Better or worse?
Alternatively, if we assume that they should be where the descendants of a poor White person in America in 1865 are today, how do we calculate or determine that? And, to add to this, would the reparations program calculate a more individualized and personalized reparation payment based on more uniquely individualized formulas, depending on the facts and circumstances, for each payor and each payee. Perhaps some of the unfortunate persons enslaved came from more well-to=do African families, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were captured by slave traders. What’s the economic starting point then? And the foregoing, questions are only the tip of the iceberg. One can immediately see that these issues are fraught with complication and endless difficulties of proof.
It’s also extremely important to remember that the current U.S. Budget situation is already under considerable strain due, to a significant extent, to the last round of Trump tax cuts. So, a huge question would be: Can the U.S. government and American taxpayers even afford reparations?
And, if the name of and reason for the benefits does matter, we clearly adopted powerful overarching laws expressly addressing the wrongs of slavery such as the Thirteenth Amendment the Constitution which prohibits slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment which contains the Equal Protection Clause forbidding racial discrimination.
And, to add yet more to the foregoing, in order to give the Equal Protection Clause more teeth we’ve adopted governmental laws and programs that have more directly attempted to end racial discrimination. Affirmative Action” programs (such as in admissions policies to colleges etc,) and “Minority Business Enterprises” statutes and policies have been adopted. These programs amount at least to some degree to reverse racial discrimination and, under them, White folks are held back—at least to some degree. Shouldn’t these laws to a large degree be held to have “compensated” the Black community for slavery? What about White kids who were denied a seat at a college because of Affirmative Action? How does that figure in? Do they get compensated? And, perhaps most importantly, it should be emphasized that we also now have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. No longer can employers discriminate on the basis of race when hiring, firing, promoting or paying employees. And, it is probably fair to say, that the laws that prohibit discrimination do, in fact, have a very significant amount of support in the White community.
Moreover, the guess here is, despite the fact that it is highly controversial, that most (but not all) White Americans will tolerate governmental Affirmative Action programs because they, grudgingly perhaps, understand them to probably be a righteous good faith effort to rectify the harmful effects of past racial discrimination (such as slavery). But the days of that grudging support may dwindle if racial tensions become exacerbated, which is exactly the point of this article.
It could very well be that there becomes a tipping point when many Whites will genuinely feel fear that they are being pushed aside; that they are being pushed around and taken advantage of, if not outright threatened. They fear job loss (especially to illegal immigrants) and the attendant loss of social status. In fact, the guess here is that this was a significant factor influencing the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
It’s one thing for Whites to support Equal Protection laws that prohibit discrimination. It’s quite another matter, however, for Whites to get the feeling like…it’s payback time and now we (Whites) are going to pay for the past wrongs of our ancestors. Whites may well begin to question supporting Black candidates and/or legislation and governmental programs that aggressively promote Affirmative Action concepts if they feel that handing over more power to Blacks will ultimately penalize White people or cause them to lose increasingly dangerous amounts of jobs and/or political influence. All of which, of course, just feeds into the message purveyed by right-wing extremists. But the point here is that issues such as reparations only feeds into the right-wing narrative that non-Whites are taking over.
[As an aside, mention here has to be made, about the “Black face” controversy that confronted Governor Northam. This may seem like a smaller issue to some, but unfortunately to many Whites, especially older Whites living in the South, who attended many Halloween parties, what Governor Northam was alleged to have done –and he denies it—is something that many White Southerners from yesteryear have done. And, rightly or wrongly, the folks who dressed up that way usually had no thought of whether they were offending anyone or not. (That is probably a sad statement, but it is true.) But the vast majority of them probably had no intention to make any kind of present-day discriminatory racial statement or to suggest that America ought to reinstitute slavery—or even that Americans should treat Blacks as second class citizens. It’s not about liking Northam. (Perhaps some of his statements have seemed disingenuous.) It’s not about being Republican or Democrat. What was, and is, alarming to many White Southerners was that a perfectly legal and commonly acceptable act in the past—dressing up to go to a party—all in fun, was being used to possibly cause someone to lose his job ten, twenty or thirty years later without any proof that the person, –Northam in this case– actually made or did any discriminatory acts while on the job or in office. That’s smells of blanket vindictive payback that so many folks could find themselves subjected to in the future. And, it begins to look, at least to some, that perhaps it was a mistake to be willing to vote for Affirmative Action and other programs that seek to advance the cause of Blacks in America.]
And, in any event, doesn’t the whole idea of paying reparations in these types of deeply rooted historical situations open a Pandora’s box on many other fronts?
If we pay reparations to blacks, won’t we have to pay, perhaps more reparations to American Indians? After all they were here first. Paying them reparations could be extremely expensive—to say the least. What’s the value of a huge parcel of land like continental America?
While some may say we are slipping, America is still the leading nation of the World. What we do often sets and example for other Nations to follow. Where does the logic of all of this go and how far?
Are we going to support a United Nations’ Resolution requiring Israel to pay reparations to the Palestinians? How about the Philistines and the Canaanites? Don’t the Israelis owe them some reparations? Are we going to require Egypt to pay reparations to Israel for the services performed by Jewish Israelites during the construction of the Pyramids? The Romans used slave labor extensively. (Many of its slaves were White Greeks.) What’s Italy going to have to pay, and to whom? And then, what would the consequences of mandatory reparations be? How successful was it to force Germany to pay reparations to the Allies after World War I? Not very. Didn’t German resentment to the reparation requirements of the Treaty of Versailles contribute to the rise of Hitler? How far back should nations go in assessing whether reparations should be paid? Where does it end?
Isn’t all of this a big reason why in law we have legal concepts like the statutes of limitation? Evidence and sources of proof get old and stale. Doing justice concerning old or ancient matters is extremely difficult and can often do more harm than good. But more importantly, people and societies have to get on with their lives and let bygones be bygones. Focusing on an issue like this only resurrects old and hurtful wounds. It pulls us apart. And Americans, now more than ever, need to be brought together, not pulled apart.
The bottom line is that there are many moral, political and practical problems that must be surmounted before a reparation program could (or even should) be implemented. The biggest question, however, is the potentially grave risk of racial disharmony and perhaps even violence that would be caused by opening up this question in this very sensitive time in American history. A time when many fear both growing right-wing extremism and that the current Administration is leading us down the path to oligarchy and despotism.
As such, pandering for votes at this particular point in time is not only not a very bad idea for candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, but it is also not in the best interests of the country.
/s/ David Dixon Lentz July 3, 2019
Revised July 14, 2019
Copyright © 2019. David Dixon Lentz. All Rights Reserved.