A More Perfect Union

Although I grew up in a home that was very politically conscious and active, my own political philosophy was not all that well developed when I was elected to Congress in a special election on December 12, 1995. That was when my real political awakening began. Through a series of experiences then and since, I have come to believe that the ideology behind the politics in Congress, and in many parts of the country, often have less to do with Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, left and right, and more to do with North and South— members who were elected from either northern or southern states. Over the last few decades that clear North/South distinction has been enlarged as the ideology of southern politics – i.e., racial animus, states rights, privatization and Second Amendment rights – has been nationalized.
My experiences in Congress sparked my desire to try to understand this dynamic: Why was this? What did it mean? What were the political consequences and implications? The North-versus-South political ideology and dynamic in Congress must be fully understood because it underlies most of our fiscal policies, legislative initiatives, policy and platform positions, and even the rhetoric of our lawmakers.
I began to study our history closely and to observe my fellow congresspersons, along with the symbols and surroundings of the Capitol and other historic buildings that I frequented every day. What I discovered, on a much deeper and broader level than I had ever been taught or understood before, is that race—and, unless otherwise indicated, in this book I use the term “race” in reference to African Americans specifically, not to people of color generally—is not merely a recent or peripheral issue in America; it is the most protracted and central factor in all of American history. Arriving at this conclusion enabled me to begin to better understand the North-South ideological political schism in Congress and the country.
As a public servant and elected official in America, I felt it was my duty to explore this racial dynamic in depth if I was going to make significant contributions as a legislator. Thus, in August and December 1997, and again in the spring of 1998, my press secretary Frank Watkins and I, and on the last trip most of my congressional staff, toured several of the American Civil War battle sites, mainly the eastern battlefields in the South.
As a result of these visits and extensive research, I’ve concluded that in addition to race, another central theme has been pervasive in our country’s founding and history and continues to be so. That recurring issue is the relationship between the federal government and the states, an ongoing precarious balancing of power—more palatable referred to nowadays as “federalism” versus “localism” or “local control.” Even more significant is the fact that states rights, local control, and race are, for the most part, inextricably bound. Our history shows that a discourse on one invariably insinuates the other.
Even though the states rights philosophy and its local practice have been the primary means of perpetuating racial injustice in America, it is clear from the reading of our history that both states rights and federal government advocates have used their respective arguments and authority to establish and maintain the institution of slavery, segregation, discrimination and inequality between the races in this country.
Race is a linear thread woven into the very fiber of American life and history. In this regard—and this is critically important to understanding my arguments in this book—I am looking at race in a very specific way. I am considering it apart from any of the emotional meanings or attachments that are so often made by both black and white Americans. I am using race simply as a lens through which to view all of American history.
Long-simmering feuds, frictions and full-blown catastrophes stemming from race issues are not unlike the three phases of an earthquake—tremor, quake and aftershocks. With this earthquake analogy, I do not mean to imply that racism is a natural event and that Americans had no choices in the matter, in the past or in the present and future. Simply put, the events of American history from 1619 to 1861 can be compared to the tremors prior to an earthquake. The Civil War, of course, would be analogous to a catastrophic great quake. Everything from 1865 through the present I see as aftershocks.
The Civil War was initially fought to preserve the Union, which was split apart over the question of slavery, but ultimately it was fought both to preserve the Union and to end slavery. These two factors were so intertwined that scholars still debate the import of each or whether or not they are indeed the same. Supporters of slavery euphemistically referred to their cause as the right to “maintain God’s ordained order,” to “preserve a region’s way of life,” to protect “property rights,” and to maintain “states rights.” States rights thus became identified with slavery and racism a state had the power (superseding the federal government’s) to protect the right of whites to privately own property in the form of black slaves and, thereby, preserve southern values and a way of life.
While the Civil War and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment legally ended slavery on December 18, 1865, the question of how to bring the former slaves into the political and economic mainstream has to this day never been fully addressed, despite the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment and the efforts at Reconstruction. And even though the Fifteenth Amendment was aimed at ending discrimination in voting on the basis of race for the former slaves, securing that right for African Americans and people of color in reality has been a constant and current struggle.
Therefore, from this perspective, the 1954 desegregation decision, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1968 Open Housing Act, affirmative action, economic set-asides and more are all part of the unfinished task of Reconstruction after the Civil War. So, too, are the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Electoral College, majority-minority districts, motor voter registration, same-day/on-site registration and automatic voter registration. But even more efforts will be necessary to achieve the full political enfranchisement of all Americans. Such legislation and court decisions stem from efforts to correct inequities often rooted in the legacy of slavery and Jim Crowism.
A More Perfect Union seeks to trace the history of race in America, and to show how the philosophy and practice of states rights still dominates our politics and prevents us from building a more perfect Union. I argue that we must attack the states rights ideology—and its close relative, localism—head-on and dramatically modify our understanding of it if we are to achieve a more just and equitable society.
This book attempts to create a new political paradigm for those who truly wish to build a better nation, in contrast to those who are committed to states rights and the devolution of the only entity capable of bringing about that more perfect Union the federal government. Our paradigm is the exact opposite of Steven Bannon’s “deconstruction of the administrative state.” We are committed to democratizing all of our governments, regardless of their size, so that they are accountable and reflect a government of, by and for the people.
A More Perfect Union offers a policy and program that will gradually provide economic security for all; a plan that will help more whites than people of color because, as the majority race, there are more whites than blacks that are poor.