Early Activism is Crucial

by: Rachel Gray

“I’ll just pay attention when it really matters.” “It’s too confusing. Why should I even care about these debates?” “I don’t have the time for this!”

---

by: Rachel Gray

For many people, election season is a very overwhelming time; however, it doesn’t necessarily have to be as scary and time consuming as it appears to be. All you need to do is just be present. As simple as that is, it’s the truth. Small, active participation is what gets your foot in the door of politics. I’m not saying you have to take notes on each debate and follow every second of each candidates campaign, but committing to simple things such as reading a debate recap or doing research on a candidates stances and history goes a long way.

To give y’all a little kick start, I’m going to be following the election from debates to scandals to God knows what. Anything is fair game this season and I know we will see all of the above in the next 403 days (election countdown). Originally I was going to do a post on each debate, but life really kicked me in the ass with college, travel, and procrastination that I never got around to it. So instead, this is going to be a comparison between the first and second debate, hitting on some highlights and crucial moments. I will also be following the Republican Party as well, but since there has not been much news, the majority of my focus right now will be on the Democratic Party.

Democratic Debate 1 vs Debate 3

Candidates

Let’s get one thing straight, 20 candidates is way too many candidates!

Debate 1: Marianne Williamson, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, Eric Swalwell, Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, Julián Castro, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, and John Delaney

Debate 3: A. Klobuchar, C. Booker, P. Buttigieg, B. Sanders, J. Biden, E. Warren, K. Harris, A. Yang, B. O’Rourke, and J. Castro

The first difference between the candidates is that HALF OF THEM didn’t qualify for the third round. In order to qualify for the third debate, candidates had to “hit 2 percent in four recent polls from a specific list of organizations, and get donations from 130,000 people”(1). However, this doesn’t mean that they have dropped out of the race. Many of the candidates from the first debate are still kicking but will no longer be in the major public eye. The second difference was the tone of the debate. Now that more of the “serious candidates” have earned their spot in the public eye, it allows for the public to begin forming conscious opinions of them. Because the candidates’ answers to the debate questions have a stronger foundation and a greater sense of commitment, the overall tone of the debates has changed from overwhelmed chaos to organized, catty chaos.

Issues

Climate Change

One thing that Dems agree on is that Climate Change is a NOW issue that cannot be put on the back burner. Many candidates in the first debate such as Castro, Buttigieg, Biden, and Harris all support rejoining the Paris Climate Accords as a first step/day one plan. Others such as Williamson, Inslee, Sanders, and O’Rourke argued that “we should get together against the common enemy and focus on transforming the energy system on moving away from fossil fuels” (Sanders.) Debate 3 focused heavily on this subject and more specifically the details of the candidates plans for combating the climate catastrophe. Klobuchar promised to introduce sweeping legislation that would enforce clean power rules and a gas mileage standard. Warren, who was a strong front runner in this debate, motioned to cut carbon emissions from buildings by 2028 and then cars and manufactures shortly after that.

Healthcare

Unlike Climate Change, Healthcare is something Dems are split on as each of the candidates think they have the best solution to the problem. The ultimate goal of healthcare is to ensure that everyone is covered affordably and effectively. Our current healthcare system is riddled with racial and economic inequalities as those who are more privileged receive better care than those who might require more time. The universal healthcare plan that many candidates support includes lowering prices of pharmaceuticals, lowering out of pocket expenses, and increase access to all hospitals. However, there is this big debate on this issue of private versus public healthcare as many candidates want to opt for a solely public plan which would exclude private companies from delivering their service. Candidates for a public only option include Sanders and Warren, who have been seen as extremist in this area. Other candidates support a “Medicare for all” plan that allows people to chose between their private and the public option. Castro’s idea of having everyone automatically enrolled, but not required to participate allows a quasi-safety net for those who might be removed unexpectedly from their private healthcare (ie. job loss or insurance switch.) The focus of the first debate was more focused on the macro aspects of healthcare such as reproductive rights, the opioid crisis, and the same private/public insurance fight. Many candidates such as Klobuchar, Williamson, and Booker note the importance of negotiating and holding Big Pharma reliable and accountable for their contribution to the opioid crisis and the dramatic rise in prescription medicine costs which have hurt the healthcare industry.

Immigration

One of the common characteristics of the Democratic Party is their Pro Immigration stance. Inclusivity and equal opportunity are core principles which drive the fight for civil rights. Ending ICE policies that violate human rights and reinstating DACA are many of the candidates Day 1 plans. Booker suggests that to strengthen our resources and alliance, we need to invest in the northern triangle which would improve the state of many countries which people are fleeing from. O’Rourke, Castro, and Ryan support the gutting of Sec 1325 which criminalizes asylum seekers who enter the country illegally, and instead, they plan to introduce legislature and rewrite immigration laws to provide an easier, safer, and faster path to citizenship. Buttigieg took a different approach to the immigration crisis. He called out the Republican’s ideology that religion justifies their discrimination. He argues that the “hypocrisy of Christian Republicans who believe that God would smile on the division of families at the hand of federal agents and that God would condone putting kids in cages have lost all claim to ever use religious language again.” Bennet claims that “the president has turned the border wall into a nativist symbol.” Yang, an “economist expert” and leader of the YangGang, urges immigrants to come to America for a better future for their children as immigration has positive effects on economics. Immigration makes the country stronger and to ensure that we continue to grow, we must create a fair and achievable pathway to citizenship.

Gun Control

I’m sure we can all agree that we have a gun violence epidemic in our country. With mass murders almost every week something needs to change. More recently there has been immense pressure put on the banning of assault weapons and even establishing a government buyback program. 97% of Americans support universal background checks, and more are pushing to hold the corporate companies accountable for their impact on this issue. Klobuchar, who is known to be more moderate, argues against gun confiscation and proposes ways to not hurt recreational hunters/responsible gun owners. Buttigieg, on the other hand, argued that “if more guns made us safer, we’d be the safest country on earth, but it doesn’t work that way.” Biden’s tactic for the first debate was clarifying his qualifications for being president. He tied himself close to Obama and brought up his previous legislation that had passed under the Obama admin. Biden argued that the enemy is the gun manufacture, not the NRA which is not a common idea among Democrats. Swalwell, Biden, Klobuchar, and many others support the idea of voluntary buyback programs which would give those who are willing to give up their guns an opportunity they would also benefit from. However, in the third debate, O’Rourke took up a stance that hasn’t been seen before. He argued for an involuntary buyback plan that would purge the streets of assault weapons. He stated that “if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield, and shreds the body of the victims due to high-velocity impact, then hell yes, we are going to take your guns.” This statement has received praise from both sides, but ultimately it has been met with positivity from the democratic public as they have realized the urgency of the situation we face today. Whatever your stance is on gun control, we can’t deny that this issue needs to be solved in a bipartisan matter. However, to accomplish that we need to put aside our differences because this is no longer a republican-democrat issue, it’s a human issue.