Our Body Politic

Florida’s Latino Vote and Biden’s SCOTUS Pick

Episode Summary

On this week's show, Host Farai Chideya talks with Politico’s Sabrina Rodriguez and pollster Fernand Amandi about how the Latino vote in Florida could shape this year’s elections. Award-winning journalist and author Celeste Headlee explores structural change around race in public media, and how everyone can have conversations about race that matter. Executive Coach Caroline Kim Oh talks about coaching BIPOC and women leaders, and the power of intentional time. And Farai sips the Political Tea about President Biden’s pending SCOTUS nomination with professors Christina Greer and Tiffany Jeffers.

Episode Transcription

Farai Chideya:

Hi folks. We are so glad that you're listening to Our Body Politic. If you have time, please consider leaving us a review on Apple podcast. It helps other listeners find us, and we read them for your feedback. We are here for you, with you, and because of you. Thank you.

Farai Chideya:

This is Our Body Politic. I'm Farai Chideya. It is February a.k.a. Black History month, but in my family, Black History month was every month. I was just going through things from a storage unit and found books, including Zimbabwe Before 1900 and The Black Experience in America series. Those were soft covers on eras including Jim Crow in the end of reconstruction. These were the things on the shelves in my parents' and grandparents' houses when I was a kid. I believe being rooted in blackness, understanding it both as a construct and real because we humans make it real, shaped how I approach my career.

Farai Chideya:

I have spent decades studying how demographics, psychographics and systems affect us all with big and measurable differences across races, regions, and wealth levels. We're also beginning the ramp up to the 2022 midterm elections this fall. And one of the super demographics in play is Latino voters. Politically, Latino is an umbrella term that describes both immigrants and people whose families have been in the US for generations and often whose family line on this continent predates the United States itself. And then there are the differences across regions, states and religions, plus a quarter of the US Latino population is of African descent. We wanted to a focus this week on the Latino vote in Florida, a state where exit polls showed a majority of Cuban Americans and nearly a third of Puerto Rican Floridians voted for president Trump in 2020. I spoke with Sabrina Rodriguez, Politico National political correspondent, and Fernand Amandi, president of the research firm, Ben Dixon and Amandi International and a political commentator with MSNBC. We wanted to talk about the Latino vote and their perspectives for this fall. Sabrina. Welcome.

Sabrina Rodriguez:

Hi. Thanks for having me.

Farai Chideya:

And Fernand, welcome.

Fernand Amandi:

Hello. It's a pleasure to be here with you.

Farai Chideya:

So I'm going to start with you Sabrina. So although president Biden won the majority of the Latino vote in 2020, former president Trump made gains with Latino voters across the country, particularly in south Florida, what issues and tactics do you see both major parties using to reach Latino voters, particularly now heading into the midterms?

Sabrina Rodriguez:

Well, the reality is the amount of headlines that we've seen since 2020 having to do with Latino voters and the inroads that Republicans are specifically Trump-made with them. When you follow Latino voters, you know that there are Hispanic, Latino Republicans across the country, especially when we're talking about places like south Florida, especially when we talk about places like south Texas, Latino Republicans have existed forever. But since the 2020 election and seeing that Trump had improved his margins in, I believe it's 78 of the nation's hundred-majority Hispanic counties, seeing that, Republicans have started to make much larger investments, whether that is the RNC doing community centers in different majority-Hispanic areas across the country, or whether it is doing more ads. Earlier, Democrats, depending on who you talk to is how much work we see the Democratic Party doing.

Sabrina Rodriguez:

For example, the DCCC is based in Washington and focuses on congressional campaigns, has been pretty diligently working on their messaging and working on what they're doing ahead of 22, but you talk to other Latino democratic operatives and they complain that you're not seeing that translate in these local races yet, that they're seeing a lot of the same consulting firms get hired, not doing the ads as early as they need to be doing and just not working on courting Latino voters at the rate that they need to be doing, given what they saw in 2020.

Sabrina Rodriguez:

So it's kind of an open question in February, what to expect the rest of this year. But right now it just seems like a lot of the same complaints that we've heard historically from Latino Democrats urging the party to work harder for Latino voters.

Farai Chideya:

Fernand, let me go to you. You run a research and consulting firm, Ben Dixon and Amandi International. What sorts of needs are you seeing that the Democratic Party has, and how well do you think the Democratic Party is doing in being responsive to those needs?

Fernand Amandi:

Well, the first answer to your question is significant. There are significant needs. How well they're doing, well, not very well if you go by the historical trends. And I think as Sabrina alluded to, there's really three magic words that help explain the Latino vote and it's managing the margins. The Democrats are going to win the Hispanic vote. I don't think anyone questions that, not even the most battle hardened Republican operative, but it is a massive difference whether they win by 55% of the vote or 70% of the vote. Those 15 points there in that middle, in many cases do represent the difference between winning an election or losing an election, or holding onto a congressional majority or losing a congressional majority.

Fernand Amandi:

And I think the fact of the matter is right now, the Democrats continue to be out-hustled by the Republican Party that understands that that battle is for those 15 points in the trenches if you will, and you just see it up and down, whether it's in states like Florida, California, Texas, or others, the Republican investment in engagement seems to be permanent and nonstop, whereas the democratic approach seems to be a little bit more cyclical. Yes, they will engage, but it tends to be late and sometimes lame in the efforts.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah, Florida is a whole ecosystem. It is more politically complex and has more demographics than most countries in the world. And Fernand, I'm going to stick with you for a second. How do you see the chess board for Latino voters in Florida specifically evolving? And what does your research in polling tell you? I mean, I noticed for example, that you are using the term Hispanic, we tend to use Latino. You've done a poll about how a lot of people who are Hispanic or Latino really don't like the term Latin X. There's even questions about that kind of verbal taxonomy, but how do you see the chess board playing out with so many different ethnicities and national origins being a part of this umbrella?

Fernand Amandi:

I mean, again, as you said, Florida is kind of its own entity into itself. But the truth of the matter is while there are elements that unite the Hispanic community and the Hispanic electorate that they really are not a monolith and there are nuances, there are different ways of engaging. And I think it's understanding those particulars, those differences and how you message and engage around them that makes the difference. And here again, and I say this as someone who sympathizes more with the democratic side of the cause, it's difficult to admit, but the Republicans are being a little bit more sophisticated, a little bit more savvy in how they're doing that type of engagement. You allude to the word Latin X.

Fernand Amandi:

Well, our polling showed that not only do 98% of Hispanic voters reject the use of that term as the term that they more most comfortable with to describe the community, over 40% say that they're disinclined to support someone. They don't like the use of the term. They look on that with suspicion. So it raises the question, "why would those in the democratic ecosystem use a word that's already, in essence, putting you against the current or behind the eight ball of maximizing your potential support with a group of voters that have proven decisive in elections past."

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. And let's wrap up with a look at a couple of political races or figures and what they say about the state of the Latino vote in Florida. I know this is a lot, so pick off what part of it you want. I'm thinking of the key race, US Senator Marco Rubio, or Republican versus the Challenger representative, Val Demings, a Democrat, and of course, Florida, governor Ron DeSantis, who may be pre-rolling towards a run in 2024. Sabrina, let me start with you, either or both, what should we be looking at?

Sabrina Rodriguez:

I think both are going to be incredibly important towards seeing how the Democratic Party redefines themselves. I mean, DeSantis and Rubio get to walk into this already, with the name recognition, with some level of they've been in office, whether you agree with what they've done in office or not. There is a body of work to build off of. Val Demings, although she has been in Congress now for years still has to, and when we're talking specifically with Latino voters define herself. I mean she's going to have to define herself against a Cuban American Republican. So I'm curious to see how that's going to go. When it comes to the governor's race, I'm very curious to see how the different democratic candidates that we have already, what exactly they're going to be doing to redefine themselves. All of them have come out, for example, late last year, there was a decision from the Biden administration that affected Colombia.

Sabrina Rodriguez:

I mean it had to do with, we could get into all the nitty gritty of it, but it just had to do with the decision that was unpopular with at least some percentage of Colombian Americans. And they immediately came out, talking about this issue and talking about it, knowing obviously the importance with south Florida's Colombian American population. So I'm going to be keeping an eye on all of that. I will say, I think two other races to be keeping an eye on in 2022 is going to be the two south Florida congressional seats that are right now occupied by Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar, as well as the one from Carlos Jimenez. They were both seats that were flipped in 2020 after having Democrats in them. And at this point, Democrats don't know who's going to run in those seats. There was a great Miami Herald article earlier this month talking about it and just saying the evidence right now is that Democrats don't have a bench of candidates for these seats. So I really want to look at those two south Florida seats to see what Democrats' game plan is.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. And let's end with you Fernand, either looking at some of the Senate race or congressional races in Florida, or governor DeSantis and his prospects for the presidency or both.

Fernand Amandi:

Well, when it comes to Florida, if you pardon the terrible pun, the elephant in the room question is whether or not the Democrats as a party have even decided to engage in Florida in a real way. There are a lot of disturbing signs that suggest that for all of Florida's importance in the national conversation, its certainly electoral strength. Many in the democratic leadership have quietly said, "it's just not worth playing there anymore. It's too expensive a state, it's a state that the Republicans have total control of the state government and it may not be winnable." I would personally disagree with that analysis because I think it's been shown that when a comprehensive, intelligent campaign is done in Florida and it's done early and it features focusing on Hispanic voters as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 12, you can win the state. But right now, in spite of the fact that the Democrats, I think have a very strong story and message to take to the voters of Florida about the work they've done, I think the question is, are they even playing in Florida anymore?

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. Wow. Well that is certainly a big question for 2022, 2024 and beyond. I want to thank you both so much for joining us. Fernand, thank you.

Fernand Amandi:

It's my pleasure. Thank you.

Farai Chideya:

And Sabrina, thank you.

Sabrina Rodriguez:

Yeah. Thanks for having me.

Farai Chideya:

Coming up next. The more a white person, the harder they're working to prove that they're not racist, the more a person of color is going to believe that they're racist. That's Celeste Headlee, author of the new book Speaking of Race: Why Everybody Needs to Talk About Racism and How to do it. Plus sip in the political tea, the latest on the new Supreme Court vacancy and president Biden's plan to nominate a black woman justice. That's on Our Body Politic

Farai Chideya:

Welcome back to Our Body Politic. For this week's show, I had the pleasure of catching up with award-winning journalist and author Celeste Headlee on her new book Speaking of Race: Why Everybody Needs to Talk About Racism and How to do it. Celeste and I have both traveled many pads in media and both dealt with a hostile work environment at a previous newsroom. She recently launched a nonprofit called Headway Training that offers diversity, equity and inclusion training and resources for public broadcasting leaders and employees. And she's been putting the principles of the book to practice in her own industry, Public Radio. Celeste, it's great to have you on.

Celeste Headlee:

Farai, it is great to be on. Thanks for having me.

Farai Chideya:

Well, you are someone who I have walked many roads with, some of which we'll get to in this interview. And you've written a number of books during a long career, as a journalist and broadcaster. And the most recent one is Speaking of Race: Why Everybody Needs to Talk About Racism and How to do it. And to be perfectly transparent, you interviewed me for this book and I myself have written two books on race. So lots of people write books on race, some better, some worse. But you also wrote this book called We Need to Talk: How to Have Conversations That Matter. So is the goal here to have conversations that matter about race?

Celeste Headlee:

Yes. It's also just to get people to have conversations period about race. I mean the fact that matters is that the conversations that are happening about race right now are generally worthless. They don't move the needle at all because they're either people who already agree with each other on most things, talking and saying, "yes, yes, yes, I agree with you." Or they are people who don't agree, throwing up their hands and saying, "you're wrong" and just shouting at each other. And neither of those, I'm not saying neither of those types of conversations are worthless, but in terms of moving the needle on progress and equity and justice, they don't do a lot.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. So give us a sense of a couple of approaches to talking about race that might be useful to people who want to have more meaningful conversations.

Celeste Headlee:

The first thing is that I want everyone to start leaning into exposure therapy. In other words, I don't want everybody to think that when you talk about race, it always has to be some kind of earth shattering, incredibly deep and impactful conversation. Sometimes it can just be, "oh wow. That's not my experience. Tell me a little bit more about that" or, "wow. I've seen things really differently. Do you mind explaining your thoughts behind that?" Sometimes it can be five minutes long, three minutes.

Celeste Headlee:

I want people to get used to having these conversations about race that don't have to be intense and in depth, just take away a little bit of that fear by making them low stakes, short, informal, as often as possible. That's number one. The second thing I would say is, "stop worrying about what you're going to say." And this is, especially for white people who get... Research has shown that white people especially go to great lengths to be careful and prove that they're not racist when they're in a conversation about race. In fact, some studies show that what they spend almost all of their time doing is impression management. And unfortunately, when you are being-

Farai Chideya:

Impression management, let me just put a little flag in that. Impression management, managing how other people are perceiving you I'm guessing, is what that means.

Celeste Headlee:

That is correct. And we all do it. But in this case, they're so careful that it comes off as disingenuous. And when they study this, they show that the more a white person is work... The harder they're working to prove that they're not racist, the more a person of color is going to believe that they're racist. They assume that what they're not saying, and the reason they're being careful and secretive is because they're hiding the awful truth. So I would say, "stop focusing on what you're going to say and focus on questions that you can ask.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. I personally was lucky to have a family where any number of white people married into the family, black American family, as well as people like my dad who were black from other cultures. I saw, "wow, there are many different types of white people", which I was raised to recognize individuality, but I was sort of marinating in it. And you describe yourself as a light-skinned black Jew. So how has being you and having grown up in your family of origin and having a family, how has that shaped how you navigate these spaces?

Celeste Headlee:

Well, you and I have known each other for a long time, you know how fair I am. And you also know that my grandfather is an OG, right? He's the Dean of black composers. So even if I'd ever wanted to pass, which I never would, that was never a possibility for me, right? I'm always going to be the granddaughter of William Grant still. I have ended up in conversations constantly going back to elementary school that were very awkward because often times it's mostly white people, not always, but mostly white people will say racist things, and even as a small child, I can remember me sitting there calculating, "do I say that I'm black or do I stay quiet?" And that calculation changes as you age and become more secure in your own identity, right? So it's always been necessary for me to be able to walk that line to be able to navigate after someone has said something racist. And in a way I feel like it makes me a little bit of a racist whisperer. Like people feel-

Farai Chideya:

I'm sorry, you need to trademark that ASAP.

Celeste Headlee:

Because sometimes people feel a little less threatened by me because I look a little like them. They may not be quite as scared of me. I don't get followed around in retail stores, way many of my friends do, I don't generally have to worry if a police officer pulls me over. And so to a certain extent, I can maybe have these conversations in situations that my darker skin friends cannot. And so I feel like I've gotten the benefit of the light skin, I need to also do the work, right?

Farai Chideya:

Hmm. And we should just really be clear that you're someone who has taken great risks to do deep, deep, deep work, particularly in public media, around race and media and you and I both were involved in the cluster of hostile work environment at WNYC in the past. But now you have been really engaging on structural change around race and public media. And I know it can't be easy. So tell us a little bit more about that work.

Celeste Headlee:

Yeah. I mean, I think that over the 25 years in public radio, I just have been so frustrated because it's not that public radio hasn't invested in attempts to become more diverse. And yet if you look at the diversity numbers every year, they'll be like, "hey, great news. The number of black people in public radio has gone up 0.04%."

Farai Chideya:

And we have seen a recent exodus of people who were at the mic, including Audie Cornish.

Celeste Headlee:

Yeah. So I just wanted to be the one going, "hey, can we just be honest and say that all of these things that we keep doing don't work." Can we be clear that just because it's making you feel good and feel like you're part of the solution doesn't mean it's true. So I launched a nonprofit, we have our 501 C3 status called Headway. We focus on three things. One is that we have a monthly meeting with guest speakers every month. And it's a place for people in public media, especially those of color to come and network, share ideas, get support, and also learn. We also do direct interventions in workplaces that are struggling with issues of equity, justice and fairness. And those are going really well. And the final thing, and we just had our first training session of certifying facilitators, I want to disrupt this model of using diversity consultants or even needing a diversity department at your company because if you have a diversity department, you're already failing.

Celeste Headlee:

I'll say that right now. If diversity and inclusion are not already so codified and buried into your company's policies and procedures, that you actually need a separate department to oversee that, then something's already going wrong. I want to disrupt this model of waiting until something goes wrong. There's some kind of explosion or something bad occurs, and then you bring in a consultant who does a day or four hours sometimes of training and then leaves. And we know perfectly well after years of research, that doesn't move the needle at all.

Farai Chideya:

I could talk to you all day and you'll have to come back, but I want to go to something completely different before we let you go. So I've talked about astrology on Our Body Politic, and I was delighted when I heard the astrologer, author and businesswoman Channy Nicholas give you a huge shout out for your book, Do Nothing: How to Break Away from Overworking, Overdoing, and Overliving. So we're in the middle of this huge mental health crisis in the pandemic. How do you think about this book, which you wrote not too long ago and the themes coming back up, especially at this critical time for humanity and for our mental health.

Celeste Headlee:

Yeah. We were already in trouble before the pandemic and we did all the wrong things. I mean, I don't know what to say about that. We started having more meetings, managers decided they needed to be more overbearing in terms of watching everybody, instead of understanding that everyone was going through trauma and giving people some breathing space. And another thing is that we weren't prepared to work from home, for those who are privileged enough to be able to work from home.

Farai Chideya:

So give us one concrete thing to walk away with from Do Nothing that might help us center.

Celeste Headlee:

You just have to find time in your day to get away from the screens. You can take a walk for five or 10 minutes, no matter how busy you are, you've got five minutes. Get away from your phone. Those breaks that you're taking, where you're scanning through social media or shopping for boots on your screen, your brain doesn't distinguish between that and work. So as far as it's concerned, you're never taking a break. So just get away from it.

Farai Chideya:

On that note, Celeste, until we speak again. Thank you.

Celeste Headlee:

Thank you Farai, good to talk to you.

Farai Chideya:

Now let's transition from one workplace thought leader to another. Caroline Kim Oh is an executive and leadership coach whose focus is on BIPOC and women leaders. Myself as a small business owner, I've benefited a lot from coaching and I also know not everybody can pay for or access those services. So I brought Caroline on to tell us more about how all of us can find ways to thrive in this moment of stress and disruption. Hi Caroline. It's so good to have you on.

Caroline Kim Oh:

Hi. I'm so happy to be here.

Farai Chideya:

So I have to say that I have really benefited from having coaching. For example, one of the people I've had coaching with said, "you really have to pay attention to your style around conflict. You don't want to be too aggressive, but you also don't want to be avoidant. And sometimes you just have to deal with the fact that other people aren't always happy with your decisions." And I find that hard. People think of me as a really outfront person, but I also value consensus. So your coaching practice focuses on BIPOC and women leaders. Do you see some commonalities among the... I'm sure the many different types of people you see in what BIPOC and women leaders need from coaching.

Caroline Kim Oh:

I'll say this. A lot of the times, career advice or life advice you get from people who are not BIPOC or women. They're like a little bit of gas lighting, right? So if your mother with small children and someone with more resources than you, right? Or someone without kids, they're advising you to really lean in, right? I'm sorry, I'm going to fall out. I don't have a backup plan, right? So it's that kind of feeling. So sometimes it's not all in your head, right? I think we're being empowered to think it's all in your head, you can do it, the problems that you don't have confidence. Sometimes it's actually other people.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. You've had a really interesting, very accomplished career. And you grew a nonprofit iMentor from four employees to 80 employees. So you know what it's like to lead. And what do you wish you could tell your younger self, perhaps the one that was running that company or another stage of your life that you know now.

Caroline Kim Oh:

Thank you for asking that. I haven't thought about that that way, but I live by this quote, "happiness is doing meaningful work with people you love." That's one of the quotes I love, I think that's from Jim Collins who wrote Good to Great, and iMentor was that job for me. And I'm happy to say my current job is too. And because I felt that way about iMentor, I worked so hard and I was always doubting myself. I was something like 28 when I started that job. And I always surrounded myself on purpose with people who were more experienced and people who I felt were smarter than me, because I needed their help to get the work done and move the organization forward. So I think that I loved the work, but also suffered a lot. It was really hard and I often felt helpless.

Caroline Kim Oh:

I wish that I had people to listen to me in confidence, right, help me think about what my options were, everything from what to say to someone, to some big strategic decision. And I did a lot of things that I'm really proud of while I was there, but I also made just as many stomach cringing mistakes while I was there, right? I think I would say, "you're doing the best you can. Right?" And "it's going to be okay", and "you're doing really, really well." I think those are the three things I would say.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. I mean, that's something that our younger self and ourself today needs and wants to hear, but sometimes it can be really challenging. Speaking of challenging, I saw a video you did recently, interviewed by Bloomberg News about burnout. So this far into the pandemic, I think almost everybody experienced some form of burnout. So what do you think companies can do or think about as so many employees have much deeper caregiving responsibilities than in the past?

Caroline Kim Oh:

Being more generous with days off, helping employees figure out, "how do I get these things done or delegate or stop doing so that I can actually take my days off, whether it's vacation days or sick days or mental health days." You might have noticed that a lot of companies and even non-profits were closed between Christmas and New Year's this year, or even two full weeks. That used to be a special thing, right? And this year, I really noticed a lot of companies were doing that for their employees. I've also seen some return or at least normalization of sabbaticals, which you never really heard outside of academia, but more companies are making that a thing. So it's been nice to see those efforts, but what I think ultimately needs to happen if this continues is companies being super honest about the goals too, at some point, right?

Caroline Kim Oh:

I was saying this to a client the other day, "if you're trying to... You've envisioned a great dinner party, right? And that's the vision you have for the company or whatever the work it is. And you check out the refrigerator and you have very few ingredients, right? You go to the store, there are very few ingredients. So basically number of hours and amount of energy, people have to work is very limited right now. So then something has to happen, right? If you're unable to procure more things, right, it doesn't matter how great your cooking skills are. You're not going to have this visional dinner that you envisioned. So what changes, right?

Farai Chideya:

Well, before we let you go, I mean, obviously not everyone can have a coach. It's not free, nor should it be. For someone who's not able to access a one-on-one coach, leave us with a thought or a resource or someplace that they can think more about how to incorporate some of this intentional thinking into their life.

Caroline Kim Oh:

Sure. I think the biggest gift you can give yourself, if you can't, that's not coaching. The biggest gift you can give yourself is gift of time and space, right? So setting up scheduling regular, intentional time to sit with yourself. It's like the types of meetings you would have with a high functioning team, right? Daily check in weekly meeting to think about your priorities for the week. What do I need, every month thinking about, "is this still important to me? What's working for me." That kind of space will give you more full access to all the things you already know and have. You could be talking to a lamppost about these things, and that will help you. So do that.

Farai Chideya:

I love that. Well, Caroline, thanks for spending some time with us.

Caroline Kim Oh:

Thank you so much.

Farai Chideya:

Appreciate it.

Caroline Kim Oh:

Thank you.

Farai Chideya:

Coming up next.

Tiffany Jeffers:

Joe Biden has like a plethora of riches. I mean, he has so many qualified black women to choose from who have really solid CVs.

Farai Chideya:

You are listening to Our Body Politic. This is Our Body Politic. I'm Farai Chideya. Each week on the show, we bring you a round table called Sippin' the Political Tea. Joining me this week is Christina Greer, political scientist and associate professor at Fordham University. Welcome back professor Greer.

Christina Greer:

Thank you so much for having me.

Farai Chideya:

And Our Body Politic contributor and associate professor of law at Georgetown University, Tiffany Jeffers. Hi professor.

Tiffany Jeffers:

Hi Farai. It's good to be home.

Farai Chideya:

Oh, thank you so much. It has been such a joy to have you on and to have both of you on, as we walk through the valley of American political crazy, and this is the Supreme Court edition of that. So justice Steven Breyer announced he would retire. And president Biden announced that the nominee will be someone with "extraordinary qualifications" and integrity. Plus she will be the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. So, Tiffany, what do you think of this announcement being framed this way? I mean, as other people have pointed out the GOP appointed three white people in a row to the Supreme Court and just did it without much discussion.

Tiffany Jeffers:

Right. The implications of framing the black woman nominee as extraordinarily qualified with integrity as if it's a caveat that only these few people we had to search far and wide to find these qualified, extraordinary black women, judges and lawyers to potentially nominate to the Supreme Court, this is not an exception. Black women are de facto, extraordinarily qualified in everything we do. And so I think it's an interesting framing. It's not lost on me that they try to go above and beyond in the narrative, just in identifying that this person is going to be black.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. I mean, Christina, how do you look at this positioning? On the one hand, this is something, one of our first episodes on our body politic, like, gosh, like 13 months ago was really on the prospect of getting a black woman on the Supreme Court. So this is an important topic, but what do you think of the framing?

Christina Greer:

Yeah. The framing is complicated because for so much of the baseline, the baseline's white maleness, right? So when we talk about nominating someone, if it's not a white male, then all of a sudden we're doing diversity hires and affirmative action. I think Joe Biden's being deliberate in saying black woman because he knows who delivered the presidency for him. He knows who the base of the Democratic Party will be. And we've also never had a black woman. So the same way that Ronald Reagan said that he wanted a woman and nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, the same way that Donald Trump said that he wanted a woman to replace RBG and he nominated Amy Coney Barrett with a very thin resume to say the very least, as Tiffany said, Joe Biden has like a plethora of riches. I mean, he has so many qualified black women to choose from who have really solid CVs.

Christina Greer:

I think the main thing that I'm actually thinking about Farai during this framing, is to check in with a lot of my professional friends, who have nothing to do with SCOTUS, but all of us have heard these same conversations when either we were applying for jobs or we were on committees, where there was ever a conversation of hiring someone who wasn't a white man and especially if there was a conversation about hiring a woman of color, more specifically a black woman and all of a sudden everyone starts bringing their hands about qualifications and we don't want to lower standards and we've heard it all before. And so I think my biggest thing is just making sure that energetically, I am holding space for other black women, especially younger black women who were dealing with this for possibly the first time. And it's psychologically really hard to constantly hear that you're not good enough, knowing good and well, we have triple the resume of half of the people who sit next to us in a lot of these spaces.

Farai Chideya:

And so Tiffany, what is the actual implicit resume of a Supreme Court justice? There's always the baseline qualifications, but there's the patterns people are expected to follow. Ivy league credentialing has been important to many people. So what's the typical path and are we seeing some new opportunities to reevaluate that with this nominee?

Tiffany Jeffers:

That's a great question Farai. There is absolutely an implicit path to the court. And as you mentioned, it includes being Ivy league-educated primarily for law school, but also sometimes for undergrad as well. You usually work at a large law firm and end up being a partner at a large law firm. You've previously clerked for one or two or possibly three federal judges at the trial level, the district court level, at the court of appeals and possibly at the Supreme Court. You've possibly been a public service employee, but only at the highest levels of the department of justice and only as a prosecutor, there are no defenders on the court.

Tiffany Jeffers:

And I think that's really the implicit package. It's this person who has gone on this path. Yes, there's whiteness, but even outside of race, all people really, for the most part have gone through Ivy league education, done these clerkships, which only stem from being educated in the IVs and then go on to big law. And so that's the implicit path. And we do see some of the candidates that are being talked about, have a bit of a different background with being educated at state schools and being public defenders in their practice career, being state judges, which is something that you don't often see someone being elevated to the Supreme Court, serving as a state judge, you have Supreme Court justices that served as federal judges, but that state contingency is often overlooked. And so there is a bit of diversity in background that's inclusive of this list that's being touted in media.

Farai Chideya:

Christina, let's talk about one specific judge who actually very much links to what Tiffany was just talking about. So there's a US district court judge, Jay Michelle Childs, Juris from South Carolina, representative James Clyburn is really she championing her. And interestingly Republican Senator Lindsay Graham supports Childs. And so representative Clyburn said that Childs being educated outside the Ivy league, being raised in a single parent household, both give perspective that the court's been missing. What do you think of this strategy of laying out that case and how much influence does representative Clyburn have?

Christina Greer:

Oh, I think we're seeing just how much influence representative Clyburn has. I mean, when we think about senatorial courtesy and presidents working with senators of their party from particular states when they're thinking about nominations, because it's the Senate that confirms Supreme Court justices. Members of the house don't really have much power in the past, it's like, thank you for your contribution, but you're not a vote. And so the fact that Clyburn who's a Democrat lives in a state with two Republican senators and he's championing Jay Michelle Childs, and has thus far gotten Lindsay Graham pretty much on board and Tim Scott, he's a wild card. He may, but he may not. He's definitely voted against African Americans before. So we should not assume that he would vote for Biden's nominee, but region matters. And so I think that having the two senators in lockstep saying justice Tiffany alluded to the importance of a public education, which the running joke is Supreme Court justices, either they went to Harvard and Yale or Yale and Harvard.

Christina Greer:

And so having them with a different type of CV is still important and keep in mind, Clarence Thomas is thus far the only Southern justice on this modern iteration of the bench. And he brings a different perspective that's oftentimes solely his own. And just because you're Southern, that's not necessarily a racialized ideology. It can be a regional ideology, which we need to think about detangling in more complex ways. And so having two black justices that would just be a snapshot of the ideological diversity of such an important political group in the country, I think is worth looking at. And so Biden has an interesting series of selections because he has so many talented black women to choose from, but because James Cliburn delivered South Carolina, when Joe Biden's campaign was all but dead and resurrected his campaign and delivered his campaign across the finish line in ways that no other member of Congress was able to do, we know that Cliburn has an out weighted role in this administration and Joe Biden's ear.

Farai Chideya:

You're listening to Sipping the Political Tea on Our Body Politic. I am Farai Chideya. And this week we're doing a special round table on president Biden's upcoming Supreme Court nomination with professors Christina Greer and Tiffany Jeffers. And if you're just tuning in, you can catch the whole conversation on our podcast. Just find Our Body Politic wherever you listen to Podcast. And Tiffany, I'm going to circle back to you, who else is being talked about as a potential nominee.

Tiffany Jeffers:

So there are so many women on this list that are worthy of conversation, but I think the top candidates at this point are judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. She is a recent appointment to the United States court of appeals for the DC circuit. She was formerly on president Obama's Supreme Court shortlist in 2016. I think another top candidate is probably California Supreme Court justice Leondra Kruger, a former deputy solicitor general. These individuals have probably a more traditional background.

Tiffany Jeffers:

And I think because of judge Brown Jackson's recent appointment, she was appointed in a bipartisan vote, getting 53 votes in the Senate for the circuit court appointment. And I think that just makes president Biden's life easier and takes away some of the drama associated with these nominations and the Senate confirmation hearings. I don't know how much of a stink Republicans actually want to make of this when they have the court in their pocket. We know the ideological makeup of the court is heavily conservative and in favor of Republicanism ideology. And so I don't know how much they want to be contentious, but going with a candidate who's already been bipartisanly successful and recently in this term, might be the path of least resistance. And so I think judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is probably the top candidate.

Farai Chideya:

I'm going to bring in something that seems totally different, but is related. So give me a second to spill it all out. Former president Donald Trump continues to support insurrectionist. And he had a recent rally in Texas where he floated running in 2024, which he has before. And he said he might just pardon people who participated in the January 6th siege of the capital quote, "because they are being treated so unfairly". On Wednesday, Politico's Tara Palmeri posted an article citing two unnamed Trump advisors. And they said that the former president thought seriously about issuing a blanket pardon for insurrectionist before he left office. Now here's the Supreme Court part. Just a couple of weeks ago, the court allowed the select committee investigating the January 6th insurrection to obtain documents that former president Trump didn't want shared. And this is all the tension is ratcheting up over what exactly will come out of the house select committee. So Tiffany, I'm going to start with you. How important is the role of the Supreme Court and what is the role of the Supreme Court in this era of investigating insurrection?

Tiffany Jeffers:

The role of the Supreme Court is crucial because the Supreme Court is the governing body that makes the determination of what powers and authorities Congress has, what powers and authorities, the executive branch has. And so if Congress wants to subpoena documents or records or subpoena individuals to testify, it's the Supreme Court that interprets whether constitutionally Congress has that authority and to what extent. So before this investigation can even begin, we need to be thinking about what powers the court's going to allow Congress to implement, to find out what happened. And the Supreme Court is the only entity that has the ability and the authority to make those interpretations. So they're critical in the investigation of the January 6th insurrection.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. I mean, black women have been integral to looking at this political era. I think about black women literally wearing capes. Delegate Stacy Plaskett of the Virgin Islands, walking in to take a look at the impeachment question. And then now we're still dealing with insurrection questions. Christina, what kind of influence do you think a black woman sitting on the court might have? Not so much for anything pegged directly to January 6th, but as we look at the structures of democracy, which are faltering.

Tiffany Jeffers:

Yeah. I mean like, listen, we know that there's a wide swath of diversity within black women as well. Lucky for us, the types of black women that Joe Biden is floating and the women that Tiffany just laid out for us seem to have an ideological leaning that is more in lockstep with the majority of black women based on polling data. But also they seem to have an understanding of the world that is equitable and fair in an abundance mindset. If we want to sort of be with the more hippy dippy, as opposed to a scarcity mindset and taking everything away from people. So as different issues come before the court all of these issues relate strictly back to democracy. So whether or not a woman has a right to choose autonomy over her body, that is a real question of can we be equal citizens in this country, right?

Tiffany Jeffers:

When we think about whether it's policing cases or brutality cases, these are questions. Can immigrants and black people and people of color ever be full citizens in this nation. Even if we're thinking about the environment and we see that the court has had cases where it's just like, oh, let companies rob and steal, it's like I've got a drink out of a paper straw because a massive billion dollar corporation, doesn't feel like doing their fair share? And so this all of a sudden relates back to larger questions of democracy and how we relate to one another as a collective. And so I'm hopeful that at least the names that Tiffany has laid out for us and that Biden is floating around, these women if we look at past precedent, they seem to look at this nation and some of the ideals of this nation as way more inclusive than a lot of the members who are currently on the court, a lot of the members who were nominated under Donald Trump and past Republican presidents.

Farai Chideya:

Tiffany, there is both hope and fear that this appointment could affect real change in the fight for social justice. Are we asking too much of one justice who we don't even know who's going to be nominated? And so many people are already pinning both hopes and fears on this future seat holder on the Supreme Court. That's a lot of pressure.

Tiffany Jeffers:

It's a lot of pressure. And what's important to remember is that this is a lifetime appointment. And so even if in the narrow scope of time, we don't see immediate changes, it's the long-term that we should be hopeful for with this appointment, that the makeup of the court at some point is going to change and shift to a more purposivism ideology, meaning the court will interpret the constitution in a way that works with the people as we live and exist in society today, not as they existed when the constitution was originally written. And so I don't think it's too much to hope that this candidate, that this nominee, whoever is appointed and confirmed, stays true to the purposivism ideology in making this world better for people that exist now. I don't think people are asking this individual to do anything single handedly. I don't think the expectation is that this person, literally dons a cape and changes the law. I don't think that's the expectation, but we do have hope.

Farai Chideya:

And Christina, what's your perspective on the pressures, hopes, fears that are being put onto one person?

Christina Greer:

I'm excited to see black brilliance on display. I am preparing for some of the drags of our nation to show their ugly head. I know that someone's going to contact the-

Farai Chideya:

That should be a whole spinoff of the tea, drags of the nation.

Christina Greer:

Drags of the nation, right? I'm not going to call them, whatever, but the drags because I know that they're going to ask someone's third grade teacher, "Well, how was she in class? Really?" There's-

Farai Chideya:

[crosstalk 00:48:52] insubordinate. She did not sit in the corner.

Tiffany Jeffers:

It's like your husband's second cousin's ex-wife's sister's brother-in-law got a speeding ticket. So that's a reflection on you, right? And so we know these things because we've actually had enough.

Farai Chideya:

Yeah. It's already happening.

Christina Greer:

Exactly. And we know that the Obama's had to be almost perfect, which to me is not equality. And so thus far, we're going to see a woman who will have to be almost perfect to make it onto the Supreme Court. And then hopefully in decades to come, if our nation still stands, we'll be able to be as mediocre as all these other guys that we've had to sit next to our entire careers.

Farai Chideya:

Well, there you go. We're going to leave it there. Tiffany, thanks so much.

Tiffany Jeffers:

Thank you, Farai.

Farai Chideya:

And Christina, always great to have you on. Thank you.

Christina Greer:

Thank you so much, ladies.

Farai Chideya:

Thanks for listening to Our Body Politic. We're on the air each week -- and everywhere you listen to podcasts. Our Body Politic is produced by Diaspora Farms. I'm the executive producer and host, Farai Chideya. Bianca Martin is our senior producer. Bridget McAllister is our booker and producer. Emily J. Daly is our producer. Our associate producer is Natyna Bean.

Farai Chideya:

Production and editing services are by Clean Cuts at Three Seas. Today’s episode was produced by Lauren Schild and engineers Harry Evans and Mike Goehler.

 

Farai Chideya:

This program is produced with support from Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, Democracy Fund, the Harnisch Foundation, Compton Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the BMe Community, Katie McGrath and J.J. Abrams Family Foundation, and from generous contributions from listeners like you.