The
Democratic race in the ongoing 2016 Presidential campaign is a close
fight between frontliner contender Hillary Clinton, and Bernie
Sanders, who lags behind yet determined to pursue the race until the
July convention.
As with
any presidential elections, the candidates' stance on issues of
national interests are on the frontline, so DiversityWorking.com
begins a 3-part series on the Democrats' leading candidates, their
views and their impact on the promotion of diversity
and inclusion.
Will their
policies be able to respond well to the myriad challenges and changes
the nation encounters during their tenure and beyond?
Their
divergent political perspectives characterize their individual stance
on key issues, though they also share similar views on many of these.
Hillary Clinton sees herself as
a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in
individual rights and freedoms, [...] that we are better as a society
when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who
may not have all the advantages in life [...] I think that's the kind
of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American
politics
Hillary
Clinton
runs on her “Hillary for America” platform that bats for:
-
a stronger economy of tomorrow through job creation,
-
stronger families through accessible healthcare, education and
enrichment programs,
-
stronger defense, and
-
a campaign financing that limits "unaccountable
money"
Bernie Sanders tends
to lean more to the left, describing himself as a
"democratic socialist" and an admirer of the Nordic model
practiced in the Scandinavian countries: a combination of free market
capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective
bargaining at the national level.
He defines democratic socialism as:
-
creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very
wealthy,"
-
reforming the political system,
-
recognizing health care and education as rights,
-
protecting the environment, and
-
creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one
person, one vote.
This
1st
article presents their respective policies on education and on
immigration.
On
EDUCATION
Although
both candidates support accessible quality education for everyone
from K-12, as well as a tuition-free public colleges/universities,
their respective political inclinations nuance how they think this
goal is to be met.
Hillary
Clinton
strongly believes in early childhood education. As a state governor's
wife, then as U.S. First Lady, and later as a senator, she initiated
and or supported programs
to make education accessible to young children, among which are the
following:
-
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youth (in the state of
Arkansas);
-
Early Head Start (for low-income kids, birth to age 3), as first
lady;
-
"Ready to Learn Act"
She
is all for a universal prekindergarten
program, even
when she was aiming for the presidency in 2008; she's for more
teacher training and equipping them with tools to meet the demands of
today's growing diversity in the schools.
Hillary
supports affordable higher education, and favors free college
education, but stresses it's only for those who truly need it. She is
for a “loans-free tuition,” and wants to lower interest rates on
current and future loans, and do away with fed gov't profit from
student debt-repayment. Clinton also plans to allocate grants for
states to invest on higher education, at the same time, calling out
to private institutions of higher education to lower their costs.
Bernie
Sanders likewise
supports a free college/university education, publicly funded by the
wealthy elite's money – through the so-called “Robin Hood Tax”
scheme which he proposes in his College
for All Act (S.1373)
– getting 50
cents on every "$100 of stock trades on stock sales" as
well as a
.5% speculation fee to be charged on investment houses, hedge funds,
and other stock trades, while a .1% fee would be charged on bonds,
and a .005% fee on derivative.
He believes high tuition and loan interest are barriers to high
quality education.
Like
Clinton, Sanders wants to stop the federal gov't from profiting on
student debt-repayment, strongly backs up historically black colleges
and universities (HBCUs) and his campaign argues that his proposal to
reduce students would help black students, who mostly are affected by
the high cost of education and low family income.
It's
the sad truth anywhere in the world there is unequitable distribution
of wealth, and that it's controlled by only a chosen few. Sander's
intention of promoting the good of education, making it accessible &
affordable for every child and youth, especially those coming from
the lower bracket of society, so as to reduce income inequality, is
indeed noble. "We
have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country
who wants to go to college can go to college -- regardless of
income," Sanders said in a statement. (See here)
On
this, Sanders is gaining traction among the young voters, the
millennials who find him providing them with a rational
response to the economic inequality and disenfranchisement they
face […] Among the issues most
pertinent to young people, and perhaps driving them to the polls, are
the increasing cuts, costs, and debt associated with higher
education. (See this)
Objections
Yet
his controversial idea of letting the rich finance the needs of the
poor may not really sit well with many who work hard to attain the
financial success or stability they want for themselves and their
family. It may not also be a good incentive for the poor to work as
hard as they should.
Moreover,
the plan is also not sustainable enough to avoid future crises, as
this
article says,
among which could be severe opposition
from the financial industry as well as the private universities that
could be put out of business.
At
the same time though, this very same message endears Sanders to the
youth who sees in him someone who will deliver them from poverty.
Both
candidates' commitment to helping black students and HBCUs are deemed
not good enough, according to this.
While
the Clinton plan creates and increases funding for which black
students and HBCUs are eligible, it falls short of the kind of
targeted investment the candidate’s surrogates suggest it has in
their criticism of Sanders. And although the Sanders plan does not
include institutional support for private HBCUs, it arguably does as
much as Clinton's to support their students while also proposing
tuition-free education for the vast majority of black students—at
public HBCUs (73 percent) and predominately white institutions (66
percent).
ON
IMMIGRATION
One
of the most hotly-debated issues in the US is immigration, what with
the growing influx of illegal aliens. As
the
Democratic Party has an open policy
on immigration –
honoring the fact that the
US is a country of immigrants, and thus, standing firm on its ideals
to value and support the country's present and future immigrants –
so
do both
Democrat candidates have an open mind towards accepting all who can
ever get to the country, and reforming as well the country's
immigration policy. -
http://www.republicanviews.org/democratic-view-on-immigration/
The
Democratic Party believe
that comprehensive immigration reform is essential to continuing the
tradition of innovation that immigrants have brought to the American
economy and to ensuring a level playing field for American workers.
https://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform
Here's
how each
of the candidate view
immigration
and how
their individual stance can affect
diversity employment.
-
favors
protecting the rights of immigrants, who
she believes as vital for the economy;
-
believes
a better
solution than
to deport millions of illegal immigrants would
be a comprehensive immigration reform with “a path to full and
equal citizenship.”
-
voted in
favor of the DREAM Act, and
-
promises
to “...to keep families together. I'll end family
detention, close private immigrant detention centers, and help more
eligible people become naturalized.”
-
“...when we see what’s been happening, with babies being left
with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school,
no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know. That
is against American values.”
-
against the exploitation of undocumented workers by employers
Clinton may be accused of flipflopping on this issue of
immigration – as she was reported to be adamantly against illegal
immigrants, and for sending back undocumented minors in 2014.
"We have to send a clear message, just because
your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets
to stay."[97] However, by May 5, 2015, Clinton stated that
allowing illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship "is at
its heart a family issue." ( Wikipedia)
Yet this only shows the candidate's flexibility to
change her position after much reflection, which a nation's president
should be able to do, when it involves the greater interest of the
people.
Bernie Sanders shares
his rival's strong support for a path toward citizenship for illegal
immigrants via a comprehensive immigration reform program: I
will take executive action to accomplish what Congress has failed to
do and build upon President Obama’s executive orders to unite
families.
-
does
not favor the idea of detention for illegal immigrants and separation
of immigrant families; considers it as injustice: “The
growth of the immigrant detention, deportation machine and the
expansion of broader militarization has perpetuated unjust policies
and resulted in the separation of hundreds of thousands of immigrant
families,”
he said.
-
believes that border security is important for the country, but
doesn't believe that a fence is the way to achieve that security;
-
against new immigrants receiving only minimum wages;
-
If you believe in
a country called the United States or any other country, you have an
obligation to do everything we can to help poor people. What
right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border
policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that
would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to
raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can
to create millions of jobs.
So
far, as can be gleaned from their respective positions on
immigration, both Clinton and Sanders will do well for diversity
employment. Basically, both are
for the upliftment of the poor, including those coming from the south
of the border. They seem to be clear about how to draw the line
between allowing anyone to enter the country in order to carve a
better future for themselves and their families, without compromising the security of the country.
More on the 2 leading Democrat candidates' position on key issues in the next part of this series.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment