The newsletter set out to explain why former President Trump was acquitted of impeachment charges in the senate. It included a thinly-veiled reference to Republicans being racist. This sort of verbal positioning is what adds fuel to the fire of national division and rightly makes people suspicious of the ideological bent of editorial boards. Vaguely calling Republicans racist and ignoring history does not contribute to healing our country.
From the Email Newsletter, Mon. February 15, 2021 – On explaining how the Republican Party still holds power,
” [It refers to the GOP –
| It benefits from a large built-in advantage in the Senate, which gives more power to rural and heavily white states. “ |
Here’s the problem exactly– the statement that Republicans have a built in advantage in the senate due its seat-composure from larger states does mean that they represent more white people. The phrase “gives more power to…heavily white states” implies that the composure of the Senate is inherently unfair.
In reality, the editor very knows that the two house system in Congress was a constitutional compromise between people who wanted states to be represented by population and those who wanted states to be represented by state land distribution. The House of Representatives favors high populations and the Senate favors large states. That’s how the Constitution was set up, and intentionally so.
Looking at the tragic history of slavery, people of African descent lived mostly on the east coast in the slave holding states. Larger western states didn’t have slavery, which is a good thing. So the colors of the population grew mainly from the history of the formation of the state. It’s not that large, rural states didn’t want folks of color. It’s that they didn’t have slavery, and so fewer folks of color ended up living there.
The editor’s phrasing is frankly irresponsible as I suspect he is quite informed enough to know better. Instead of blaming Republication decisions on implied (but historically unjustifiable) hatred of black people, wouldn’t it be better to actually examine the positions? To see each side as coming from a place of meeting needs of the people would be a lens to show each other’s humanity rather than to demonize one another.
Stephanie Pacheco 