In 2008 Gary Clack of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, “Shirley Chisholm broke ground before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton” (and, I would add, Bernie).

Born in 1924, Shirley Chisholm was an African-American politician, educator and author.

In 1965 she ran for the New York State Assembly with the slogan ‘Unbought and Unbossed.” She served there from 1965 to 1968.

In 1969 she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the first African-American woman elected to Congress. She served until 1983.

On January 25th, 1972, she announced her presidential bid, calling for a bloodless revolution in the forthcoming Democrat National Convention. She became the first African-American major-party candidate to run for President of the United States, and also the first woman to run for the Democrat Party presidential nomination.

She said, “In my political career, and my run for the Presidency, I faced more discrimination as a woman than for being black.”

She lost to George McGovern, but she had broken new ground.

During her years in the New York State Assembly, she worked to improve the lives of inner city people. In Congress she worked to create programs to feed at-risk families including the “Women, Infants and Children” program. She was a tireless advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment. She opposed the draft, supported increased spending for education, healthcare, and other social services, but for a reduction in military spending. She was opposed to the Vietnam War and to the expansion of weapon development.

After leaving Congress in 1983 she taught and lectured in many colleges. She visited local minority groups and urged them to become a strong force at a local level. In 1984 and 1988 she campaigned for Jesse Jackson.

She retired to Florida in 1993.

When I watched the documentary film, Shirley Chisholm for President and saw her, an African-American woman, stand up for her beliefs against immeasurable odds, I felt admiration and respect for her courage and integrity. She inspired me and gave me hope in a way that modern political leaders do not. She may have died in 2005 but her example still lives on.

She told her students, If you don’t accept people who are different, it means nothing that you’ve studied Calculus.

The American economy has been growing at less than 2% per year. Productivity, which leads to higher wages, has grown at less than one percent, accounting for the very slim raises the last year or so.

Of the growth that has occurred, most of it has gone to the top 10% of taxpaying families, who now take one-half of all income reported in this country. Bernie Sanders has no practical response. Donald Trump ignores the issue.

So what could reasonably be done? Since some of the inequality comes from the rising premium for technical skills, we need to provide more vocational education for underemployed Americans of all ages. Since much inequality comes from single parent households, we need to strengthen marriage by targeting income support for two-parent households. Since excessive incarceration for non-violent felonies has weakened minority communities, we can strengthen them by offering the unemployed jobs repairing public facilities. Community corrections should replace prison terms. Since discrimination against women contributes to poverty too, stronger unions should demand equal pay for equal work. That work should earn a new minimum wage of $10-12 an hour. Studies show that this modest increase in the current minimum wage would not raise prices or unemployment unreasonably relative to the benefits for those who need it.

A program like that would attract my vote.

These calculations often involve such parsing of words and careful phrasing, that politicians seem to have developed an art of saying nothing while appearing to be saying something. Most politicians practice this art and that’s why people say “they’re all the same.”

Then along comes someone like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both of whom APPEAR NOT to be playing the Game. I say the APPEAR NOT to play the Game—time will tell if they are.

Yet the two men are different. Trump doesn’t appear to be ABLE to play the Game of calculated response because he is so impulsive that he has to say out loud whatever comes to his head. Yet his lack of calculation has been part of his appeal. Some voters support him in spite of the outrageous quality of his remarks, his inconsistencies and his lack of specifics.

Bernie Sanders appears to be driven by issues he thinks are important—income inequality and poverty. One gets the sense that he says what he thinks, but that it is not about him or his electoral success.
Hillary Clinton has sincere, long held and articulated policy views. Nonetheless, many get the feeling that what she says and HOW SHE SAYS IT betray too much reliance on calculation.

Does a politician have to play the “Campaign Game” in order to win? Apparently, most politicians think so. I hope they are wrong!

He was referring to Danish policies such as universal health care, free college education and subsidized day care that give more aid to workers than their American counterparts receive. Danes in their prime working-years are more likely to be employed than similar Americans, and they take more vacation too. Although taxes are higher, studies claim Danes are happier than people in most other countries.

Conceding that she too likes Denmark, Hillary Clinton responded that the United States had a capitalist economic system which needed to be controlled, not replaced. She might have added that the United States is a much larger and more diverse country, increasing the cost and complexity of providing public services like the Danish ones. The United States also has responsibilities Denmark does not, most notably in defense, where American spending far exceeds Danish outlays.
What neither seems to have noticed, however, is that for some time, the voters in Denmark and its neighboring countries have been questioning the generosity of their social and economic policies. Indeed, this summer, the Danes elected a more conservative government amid anti-immigrant, anti-European Union sentiments that have been growing rapidly.

So perhaps the real question Americans should ask about Denmark is why the achievements many outsiders admire are increasingly questioned at home.

Sources:

Transcript of Democratic debate
Danish social and economic policies
Danish happiness
Defense spending
New Danish government

This is a big news story. But you wouldn’t know it listening to NPR.

As of May 5th, NPR had aired a grand total of four reports on Sanders’ candidacy. Contrast this with upwards of 30 reports on Hillary Clinton’s campaign since she announced her candidacy last month.

Can you say “playing favorites?” Sure you can.

The first brief mention of Sanders’ announcement was buried in a story on union opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a report that was skewed toward Mrs. Clinton, despite her warm embrace of the trade deal.

Subsequent reports fared no better. Ailsa Chang’s story on Morning Edition simply re-purposed an interview with Mr. Sanders from last summer. This is lazy reporting, plain and simple.

Then there’s Mara Liasson’s story on All Things Considered. Headlined “Why Hillary Clinton is Just Fine with Bernie Sanders’ Candidacy,” Liasson’s “report” sounds more like a Clinton press release than substantive political analysis.

All of which begs the question: Will NPR cover the Democratic race in a fair and accurate fashion, or is the news organization content to propagate the narrative of inevitability that Mrs. Clinton enjoys, but certainly doesn’t deserve?

After all, Hillary was a sure thing in 2008; but things change. Here’s hoping NPR’s coverage of the 2016 campaign does so as well.

Sources

Chang, A. (29 April 2015). “Seeking Presidency, ‘Socialist’ Sanders Looks to Elevate Less-Talked About Issues.” Morning Edition.

Gonyea, D. & Montanaro, D. (28 April 2015). “Union Head Presses Candidates, Clinton, on Trade.” All Things Considered.

Liasson, M. (30 April 2015). “Why Hillary Clinton is Just Fine with Bernie Sanders’s Candidacy.” All Things Considered.