Democrats, The Fight is Far From Over: The Future of Biden’s Presidency
President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks have been highly contested among Democratic party members. Photo by Gage Skidmore.
After a historic election and baseless claims of voter fraud, President-Elect Joe Biden’s current challenge has been putting together a Cabinet responsible for leading the country through a global pandemic, an economic recession, and heightened racial tensions.
Expectations for Biden’s Cabinet picks were high. After centuries of the “old boys’ club,” Americans are demanding greater representation in their government. The President-elect himself, in a joint interview with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, pledged, “I'm going to keep my commitment that the administration, both in the White House and outside in the Cabinet, is going to look like the country.”
Biden also faced increased pressure from left-wing Democrats, particularly supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who have advocated for more progressive Cabinet members. Their concerns came as Biden announced his transition team, including executives with ties to pharmaceutical companies, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley. Progressives worried that Biden would uphold the status quo of surrounding himself with “corporatists,” rather than activists and “ideologues.”
Biden has made some historic choices for his Cabinet: in addition to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, the first female, Black, and Asian American to hold the position, he has also nominated Alejandro Mayorkas, who would be the first Cuban American and immigrant to lead the Department of Homeland Security (though some believe Republican senators may oppose this nomination, given that Mayorkas spearheaded Obama’s DACA program while he was director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). The President-elect has also chosen Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary, the first woman to hold this office, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a Black woman, to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations. Biden has also nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the first Latino to run the department, should the Senate approve him.
However, many worry that Biden’s push for greater diversity only served a “cosmetic” purpose: too often have politicians co-opted identity politics for political “clout.” Civil rights groups including the NAACP, National Urban League, and National Action Network—many of which played a major role in helping Biden secure Black voters and ultimately win the election—are determined to hold the President-elect accountable to his commitment to creating the “single most diverse Cabinet based on race, color, based on gender.”
In Biden and Harris’ first meeting with civil rights leaders concerning diversifying the Cabinet, Rev. Al Sharpton, President of the National Action Network, warned of the “double standard” over Army Gen. Lloyd Austin’s nomination for Secretary of Defense. Austin, having served in the military within the past seven years, requires a waiver in order to serve as Secretary of Defense, in accordance with the longstanding principle that the military should be led by a civilian, separated from partisanship. However, the same waiver has been granted before, to Jim Mattis in 2017, though 150 Democratic representatives voted against it. Although Biden urged Congress to grant the waiver to Austin, who would be the first Black Secretary of Defense, Sharpton is concerned that Austin will face pushback: “We will not accept getting to the Black guy and, all of a sudden, we’re going to change what we’ve already done twice.” Biden’s failure to appoint Austin, with his wealth of military experience, would communicate the idea that “no Black person in the future will ever be deemed qualified by the foreign policy establishment.” Austin’s nomination now sits in the hands of Congress, but will Biden’s confidence in him convince Democrats to heed the recommendations of community organizers and advocate for Austin, and against the precedent their own party set in 2017 with Mattis?
Sharpton had also hoped that Biden would nominate a Black attorney general, someone with “a proven civil rights background, not someone that’s going to handle this heightened racist, bigoted atmosphere with on the job training.” Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and now nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, concurred: “Restoring the integrity of the Justice Department will be no easy task, and watered-down nominees will not be acceptable to our community.” Ultimately, Biden chose Judge Merrick Garland, whose nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 by President Obama was blocked by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to serve as attorney general.
Top contenders for attorney general included Alabama Senator Doug Jones, Sally Yates, Tony West, Deval Patrick, and Stacey Abrams. As U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Jones prosecuted former Ku Klux Klan members who bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, killing four young Black girls. Sharpton suggested West, chief legal officer at Uber and—perhaps a conflict of interest—the brother-in-law of Kamala Harris, and Patrick, a former Massachusetts governor and assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division during Clinton’s presidency. Stacey Abrams has an impressive record of advocating for voter rights and protection, including registering 800,000 voters in Georgia through her organization, Fair Fight, and flipping the state for Biden. Should she be nominated for attorney general, she would play a key role in strengthening the civil rights division of the Justice Department. Given Abrams’ important work in helping Biden win his election, the President ought to formally recognize her abilities—and the contributions of other Black women who also helped him win the White House.
Many viewed the attorney general as one of the most critical positions for the Biden administration to fill, as the next attorney general will have the power to investigate President Trump and his administration, reestablish trust in the Department of Justice (which has been “so rocked by politics and politicization”), and now, address racial bias in the criminal justice system, including recent police violence. In his nomination, Biden faced a key challenge: listen to the communities affected by the actions and decisions of the attorney general, particularly in regards to prosecuting police misconduct, or play it safe and adhere to the status quo? Judge Garland has received bipartisan support for his abilities to reinstate the Justice Department’s credibility. However, criminal justice reform activists worry about his “deferential” attitude towards law enforcement. Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, stated: “It’s certainly a safe choice. It’s not an inspired choice.” Judge Garland will have a profound effect on the future of racial justice and voting rights in the United States, and he must be prepared to investigate the attacks on civil rights in this country.
Another Cabinet position creating tension among Democrats has been Secretary of Agriculture, traditionally viewed as a “voice for rural America.” Biden has nominated Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa and previous agriculture secretary under Obama. However, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn expressed support for Ohio Representative Marcia L. Fudge, who would have been the first African-American agriculture secretary. Fudge, a member of the House Agriculture Committee and chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee, played a key role in mobilizing Black women and ensuring Biden’s victory. Fudge’s appointment would have shifted the focus of the United States Agriculture Department (USDA) from farm policy, the Forest Service, and food safety--what the department is traditionally associated with—to hunger and nutrition policy, including food stamps. Representative Clyburn also believes that Fudge would have addressed often-overlooked “consumer issues and nutrition and things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.” Meanwhile, critics of Vilsack worry that he will “strengthen a status quo they say favors large corporate farm interests” rather than help the low-income Americans who would have benefitted from Fudge’s focus on hunger policies. Once again, Biden’s pick is not as progressive or representative of America as some had hoped.
Fudge, instead, has been tapped to serve as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In an interview with POLITICO, Fudge expressed: “As this country becomes more and more diverse, we’re going to have to stop looking at only certain agencies as those that people like me fit in. You know, it’s always ‘we want to put the Black person in labor or HUD.’” Biden must be careful not to perpetuate microaggressions that limit people of color to certain professions or areas of expertise in his attempt at promoting greater diversity.
Although Biden’s promise of a diverse, progressive Cabinet is commendable, we must be skeptical of the President-elect’s words. The Democratic Party tends to lean left during elections but “lurch right once in power.” Though President Barack Obama’s election represented a victory for grassroots organizing and progressive causes, some described his eight years in office as “complacency and silence in the face of legislative retreat.” In fact, during the formation of his first Cabinet in 2008, President Obama also favored establishment-types over progressives and activists. Despite Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war, his Cabinet, particularly defense secretary Robert M. Gates, who led the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq under the Bush administration, did not reflect the President’s progressive views. Obama also promised sweeping health-care reform but failed to pass a public health insurance option in the Senate in 2009, in spite of overwhelming support from Democrats. In response to these disappointing retreats from the liberal ideas he promised, many democrats “mut[ed] their protest...remaining wary of undermining what they see as the most liberal president sent to the White House in a generation.”
A Democrat in the White House does not guarantee progress. We may have elected a new president, but we still face many serious issues: a flawed healthcare system, climate change, and institutionalized racism, to name a few. The activism and strong political engagement we saw these past four years must not fizzle out, as the fight is far from over—it has only just begun. As the needs of our country change, so must our leaders. We cannot allow our politicians to celebrate the voices of Black women such as Stacey Abrams when they need them, then toss them aside once diversity quotas have been met or elections have been won. We cannot afford another four to eight years with the status quo, establishment-types who are not equipped to respond to the new (and never-addressed) issues our country faces, and the transforming responsibilities of the executive departments. We simply do not have the time if we hope to save our communities from another George Floyd or the ongoing crisis in Flint, Michigan. It is in Biden’s best interest to heed the advice of the grassroots organizers, trailblazers, and idealists who helped him become the 46th President of the United States—individuals who represent the future of this country. And it is in our best interest to continue to hold him accountable to his promises, including that of a more progressive and representative Cabinet.