Home » Content Tags » voting

voting

7/27/22

By Kimmy Yam

As the midterm elections draw closer, a new survey shows a more complicated picture of the Asian American and Pacific Islander electorate than political parties have portrayed in the past. 

The Asian American Voter Survey, released Monday, examined Asian Americans’ and Pacific Islanders’ attitudes about key issues leading up to the elections in November. It found that while hate crimes and education continue to be significant to Asian Americans, the group’s priorities also lie in issues like health insurance, the economy and the environment. 

In the past, political parties haven’t sufficiently appealed to the electorate across all those issues, said Janelle Wong, a co-director of AAPI Data, the research organization that conducted the survey. And there’s still plenty of opportunity to activate Asian American voters. 

“Most of Asian American politics covers two topics: hate crimes and affirmative action,” Wong said. “Many people, including candidates, think about Asian Americans as very single-dimensional or dual-dimension, but they don’t think about these complexities and how to really appeal to the broader Asian American agenda.”

For the survey, which was released as a joint effort of the organizations APIAVote, AAPI Data and Asian Americans Advancing Justice — researchers for Asian Americans Advancing Justice polled more than 1,610 registered Asian American voters across six of the largest Asian American ethnicities, in four languages. Similar to years past, respondents leaned left, with 54% reporting that they would vote for Democrats in both Senate and House races. 

Asian Americans also showed consistency on major issues. The survey found that 88% of Asian American respondents ranked health care as “extremely important” or “very important” in deciding their votes in November. Jobs and the economy came in second, at 86% of the electorate, and crime came in third, at 85%. Gun control and the environment were also critical topics. 

“What that tells me is that there are some enduring trends in this community,” Wong said. “People care about health care and the economy as much as they do about crime.”

However, outreach to and understanding of the group remain severely limited, Wong said. The survey found that while about two-thirds of registered voters say they plan to vote, the majority haven’t heard from either party. Fifty-two percent of Asian Americans had had no contact from the Democratic Party, and 60% had had no contact from Republicans.

“Asian American communities, despite the progress we have made and increasing political power, are still being ignored by many politicians, to their detriment,” Christine Chen, the executive director of APIAVote, wrote about the survey in a statement.

Nainoa Johsens, Republican National Committee spokesperson and director of APA Media, its AAPI communications arm, told NBC News they’ve engaged with AAPI voters through a number of avenues.

“Under the leadership of Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, the RNC has been on the ground months before Democrats to engage with the Asian American community through our Asian Pacific American community centers and engaging with AAPI voters with events like dance classes, karate lessons, game nights, and potlucks," Johsens said.

Eric Salcedo, director of AAPI outreach at the Democratic National Committee, said that the party has invested "significantly" in outreach.

“Asian Americans are the fastest-growing coalition group, and communicating to these voters is central to Democrats’ efforts to protect and expand our majority," Salcedo said. "The DNC has made significant investments in multi-platform outreach to Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities to reach these voters where they are ahead of the midterm election.”

The president of the Association for Asian American Studies, Pawan Dhingra, a professor of sociology and American studies at Amherst College, said the parties have flattened the concerns of the Asian American electorate. 

It’s as if they talked to Latinx and only talked about immigration, when in fact other issues matter as much or more,” he said. The economy and issues facing small-business owners, reproductive rights and inflation are all also Asian American and Pacific Islander issues, Dhingra said, and they need to be seen as such. And to further activate the electorate, politicians will have to demonstrate that they understand how the population actually experiences those issues “whether by being local in their approach, using non-English languages, recognizing the histories of immigrant groups, et cetera,” Dhingra said. 

“Anti-Asian hate crimes are part of the puzzle but not all of it,” he said.

Hate crimes do continue to be a concern for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Wong said. Those who worry “very often” about hate crimes plan to support Democrats over Republican House candidates by a 3-to-1 ratio. 

However, opinions around the issue are complicated, Wong said. According to the survey results, respondents were more divided in their assessment of the two parties’ handling of crime, indicating that they don’t view the topic as a partisan one, she said. Wong also said their views don’t necessarily match an aggressive push for carceral solutions that some activists have perpetuated. 

“Political power is really about who is organized and which voices are aligning with broader narratives and how are those outside of the Asian American community who have political power framing these issues,” Wong said. “There is a divide between mass public opinion, the beliefs of everyday Asian Americans, because this survey captures everyday registered voters’ rights versus activists.”

The survey found that 50% of respondents agreed with shifting spending from law enforcement to “programs that address economic and social issues for minorities.” About half of that percentage, 24%, disagreed with such a shift. Wong also said that Asian American voters showed concern for racism against communities of color more broadly and that 73% supported including Asian American and nonwhite history in public school curriculums. 

“There is, and always has been, this willingness to join in the broader coalition of people of color when it comes to racial equity, despite the headlines that we still see,” Wong said. 

She added, “We’re not seeing your typical, reactionary response, that being fearful or worried or concerned about crime means that people want to take up an aggressive stance either with regard to law enforcement or with regard to guns.”  

A separate study released last week by the organization Stop AAPI Hate similarly found that 53% of Asian Americans and 58% of Pacific Islanders said education was the most effective response to hate crimes.  Community-based solutions and civil rights legislation and enforcement were also highly favored. A minority of respondents, on the other hand, saw more law enforcement as an effective solution, at 30% of Asian Americans and 21% of Pacific Islanders. 

The Asian American perspective on education also continues to be misunderstood, Wong said. While Asian Americans are often cast as opponents of race-conscious admissions, with candidates often trying to appeal to the group through that perspective, the survey found that the majority of respondents support affirmative action programs. The hyperfocus on affirmative action and hate crimes, Wong added, could also come from a long-standing perpetuation of both model minority and perpetual foreigner stereotypes.  

But across many issues, Asian Americans have exhibited consistencies that point to stronger support for more government and a more cohesive political identity. For example, the vast majority of the electorate supports stricter gun laws, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and legislation to reduce climate change. 

“There is a foundation to build on,” Wong said. “What is still uncertain is how, and to what extent, will activists be able to really capture the attention of Asian Americans around these issues?”

 

The talk is part of a series centering ARHU faculty expertise on issues of systemic racism, inequality and social justice.

Date of Publication: 
2021-11-03
News View: 
Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM

The College of Arts and Humanities (ARHU) at the University of Maryland continues its successful Dean's Colloquium Series on Race, Equity and Justice, a colloquium and conversation series hosted by Dean Bonnie Thornton Dill.

9/24/21

BY ROBERT S. LEVINE

Robert S. Levine is Distinguished University Professor of English at the University of Maryland, College Park, and author of The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, available now from W. W. Norton & Company.

On Jan. 3, 1867, nearly two years after the end of the Civil War, Frederick Douglass stood before a full house of hundreds of African Americans at Philadelphia’s National Hall. He had been invited to speak in a Black lecture series organized by William Still, famous for his work on the Underground Railroad. As recounted by the Philadelphia Daily Evening Telegraph, the celebrated African American singer Elizabeth Taylor Greenfield performed several arias before Douglass’s introduction. Douglass then took the stage to speak on the “Sources of Danger to the Republic.” The Telegraph reported that he “was frequently interrupted by applause, and evidently made the best effort of his life.”

“Sources of Danger to the Republic” is indeed one of Douglass’s greatest speeches, and it deserves to be better known for its ruminations on the precarious state of democracy in post-Civil War America. Douglass delivered the speech in the midst of the battle over civil rights for Black people, addressing the threat posed to the nation by a racist President who refused to give them the full rights of citizenship. Douglass’s warning about antidemocratic authoritarianism during the early years of Reconstruction resonates in our own time as well.

The “Sources of Danger” speech was prompted by the reactionary policies of Andrew Johnson, who assumed the presidency on April 15, 1865, after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Shortly after taking office, Johnson pardoned former Confederate leaders, and over the four years of his presidency he vetoed all legislation that sought to expand the rights of African Americans. (Many of those vetoes were overturned by the Radical Republicans and their allies.) In particular, Johnson opposed measures that granted African Americans the right to vote. His reactionary policies contributed to massacres of Black people in Memphis and New Orleans during the spring and summer of 1866. Appalled by the killing of over 100 Black people in those cities, Douglass linked the murders to the disempowerment promoted by Johnson. “Disenfranchisement means New Orleans; it means Memphis,” he said. In this way Douglass called attention to the always simmering possibilities for violence that accompanied the suppression of voting rights.

But Douglass was also angry at the Radical Republicans, who claimed to support African Americans, but attempted to stop Douglass from attending a public meeting of Republicans in September 1866 because they didn’t want their party to be perceived as “Black.” Douglass was also distraught that the Republicans’ proposed Fourteenth Amendment, which gave Blacks birthright citizenship, failed to include the right to vote. Without the vote, Douglass bitterly remarked, “my citizenship is but an empty name.”

Convinced that Reconstruction was at a crossroads, Douglass composed “Sources of Danger to the Republic” during late 1866 and gave its first full presentation in January 1867 to the Black lecture series in Philadelphia. In all versions of the speech, Douglass asked: What happens when a “bad man,” as he termed Andrew Johnson, occupies the White House? Douglass knew that Johnson was hardly the first “bad man” to assume the presidency and would not be the last. Before the packed house at National Hall, Douglass made a surprising claim: the principle source of danger to the Republic was the Constitution itself, which, by failing to put a significant check on executive power, “put the liberties of the American people at the mercy of a bad and wicked President and his Cabinet.”

Douglass admired the U.S. Constitution, regularly calling it a “liberty document.” But it had “defects and errors,” he claimed, because the framers mistakenly invested the President with “kingly powers.” Key to Douglass’s speech was his elaboration of exactly how the Constitution enabled a President to thwart democracy.

Douglass objected, first of all, to the “immense patronage” that the Constitution put at the President’s disposal—hundreds of millions of dollars that he could use to appoint someone to a government job “because of his political opinions, not for any fitness for the position.” Patronage power was potentially corrupting, both of the President and his appointees, Douglass explained, for “it holds out a temptation to a man to agree with the President, not because of the wisdom and justice of his position, but because in that way he can get something in exchange for his soul.”

Second, Douglass objected to the Constitution’s conception of a presidential veto that could only be overturned by a two-thirds vote of Congress. Placing so much power in the hands of the President, he insisted, undercut the democratic spirit of Congress. In a similar vein, he argued that the presidency should be a single-term position. Under the current system, he remarked, the President “is partly President, and partly chief of the Presidential party.” For that reason, the President will always be tempted to serve himself more than the country.

Third, Douglass took special exception to the President’s pardoning power. The framers’ decision to make the President the sole arbiter on federal pardons in effect gave the President “a coin with which to traffic in treason.” Knowing that he could pardon anyone serving his interests, the President could use that power to gain “co-operation and alliance, instead of loyal obedience to the laws of the land.” Douglass summed up the problem: “A Government that cannot hate traitors, cannot love and respect loyal men.”

Douglass believed that the defects in the Constitution could be fixed through amendments that cut back on patronage, limited the pardoning power, changed the votes needed to overturn a presidential veto, made the presidency a one-term position and got rid of the vice-presidency (the office that enabled Johnson’s presidency). “Laughter and cheers,” according to the reporter for the Telegraph, greeted Douglass’s remark that “we have had back luck with Vice-Presidents.”

Douglass despised Johnson. But even more crucial to “Sources of Danger” was his concern that Americans risked losing that which they most valued: “democracy in its purity.” For Douglass, democracy was about voting rights. Making clear that the lack of Black suffrage had much to do with Johnson, but was not exclusively Johnson’s fault, Douglass proclaimed: “The fact is that the ballot-box, upon which we have relied as a protection from the passions of the multitude, has failed us, broken down under us.” Most Black people in America, whether in the North or South, simply didn’t have the right to vote. In his speech at National Hall, Douglass called on Black people to “hate as you love,” extolling anger as a way to create community and prompt political action. One month later, when he gave a slightly revised version of the speech to a white audience in St. Louis, Douglass concluded quite differently, telling the whites in attendance that “this matter of Reconstruction” can be left to the “constructive talent of this Anglo-Saxon race.” He continued to deliver versions of “Sources of Danger” through 1867; it was one of his most popular speeches.

With the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, giving Black men the right to vote, Douglass got what he wanted, but by the late 1870s Black people found it nearly impossible to vote in the South. Douglass anticipated these problems in “Sources of Danger” when he instructed Johnson and other white racists: “Drive no man from the ballot-box because of his color.” Douglass’s speech inspired people in 1867 and has much to say to us today, not just about the dangers posed by executive power, whether of Presidents or governors, but about what it means for the character of the nation to restrict the voting rights of African Americans and other people of color. The speech is a prophetic warning from the past about how the powerful can use the tools of power to shut down democracy. Just as important, it advocates resistance in order to preserve what Douglass termed “our beautiful republican institutions.”

Subscribe to RSS - voting