‘Public Policy Can Redress Systemic Challenges’.
Arguably the most influential progressive think tank in the country, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has shaped the national conversation around a range of social and economic issues.
Neera Tanden, CEO and president of CAP and its affiliate organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has led the institute to become a national generator of research, advocacy, and actionable ideas that lead to public policy solutions to challenges of racial inequality, immigration, criminal justice, health care, economics, education, and more.
On Friday, October 18, Tanden will serve as a keynote speaker at the School of Public Health’s Dean’s Symposium, “400 Years of Inequality: Breaking the Cycle of Systemic Racism.” Having served in key health reform and domestic policy roles in the Obama and Clinton administrations, as well as Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign and Senate administration, Tanden will draw upon her vast experience in politics and government to discuss how progressive change can address the systemic inequities that many communities, particularly people of color and people in low-income neighborhoods, experience.
“In the 21st century, we know that a range of policies can have a disproportionate impact, and there are policies on education, health care, and other issues that don’t address the systemic biases in the system,” says Tanden. “We want to create policies that are universal, but targeted in effective ways, so that they redress the particular disadvantages communities of color are facing.”
Ahead of the symposium, Tanden spoke more CAP’s education and healthcare policy agendas, the challenges of developing public policy in a post-truth society, and unity within the Democratic Party.
CAP published an interactive that shows how certain progressive policy proposals would impact the racial wealth gap and reduce inequities in education. Can you explain how a racial equity lens should be applied to education policies?
The United States stands out in the world for not doing very much for childcare or education among children zero to five. That has a disproportionate impact on children of color, because their families are disproportionally low-income and have fewer resources to meet basic needs. At CAP, we try to think through how public policy can redress these challenges.
Let’s say you are a three-year-old, African American girl. Part of the reason you may be in poverty is because you have a family that is poor, but the poverty you are experiencing can also be in part because we have systematic biases towards African Americans (and particularly African American men). The Raj Chetty data, which was really a breakthrough, essentially shows that racism is driving the differential in upward mobility for higher-income African American men, versus lower-income white men. Upper income African American men have lower rates of mobility than lower-income white men. So we’re trying to see how public policy can redress the systemic challenge, and I think that investing in children zero to five is really important. We proposed having a universal childcare plan that not only focuses on the needs of families, but creates quality childcare experiences in places that have few resources.
CAP largely formed the basis of the Medicare for America healthcare plan, an alternative to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan. How will Medicare for America address some of the structural challenges that people of color experience in the healthcare system?
People of color do have disproportionate insurance rates and medical debt. The Medicare for America plan we’ve put forward ensures coverage for all people. It ensures that low-income people can have their health care fully subsidized by the federal government, so there won’t be higher uninsurance rates amongst people of color, because everyone will be covered. The medical debt that exists is really disproportionately amongst people of color, so the plan redresses health care in that way.
But there are other issues that we face in the healthcare system, including bias, that require us to go beyond a universal program to have policies that really target those unconscious biases. I’m proud that CAP was the first think tank to really identify and find solutions to the maternal child health crisis in this country, in which African American women have a much higher rate of mortality than white women or other groups. Our researchers have found bias in the healthcare system where an African-American woman could be in maternal distress but it wouldn’t be identified as quickly as a white woman. Almost two years ago, we developed a major paper which says we need better training, and that hospitals need to be held accountable for these differentials. But we also need training in medical schools, because doctors can have unconscious biases, and those biases can become lethal in medical settings.
In an Elle Magazine interview, you said that “life experiences of decision makers really matter to how policy is made.” How does that notion shape how you developed policies with the Clinton and Obama administrations?
I was very privileged to work in the White House and on the Domestic Policy Council. I worked for Hillary in the Senate and for Obama on healthcare reform, so I feel very fortunate to have had different kinds of experiences in setting policy. It matters pretty significantly who the decision makers are. In the Clinton White House, I worked on the Children and Families team, and I reported to Hillary Clinton. Her advocacy of policies that affected children was singular in the White House—no one advocated for those issues more than she did. Hillary cared a great deal about children and family issues because she experienced them herself. She knew what it was like to be a mother of a young child who is sick—you have to juggle your whole life to make sure that your child is cared for. Those kinds of experiences made a big difference to her. She was a big advocate of childcare, paid leave, and after-school programs, because she understood the stress it places, not just on families, but particularly on women. It’s not that men in the Senate or White House couldn’t advocate for those programs, but it mattered a lot that women did.
As another example, CAP is a fantastic organization, but we didn’t have a women’s team until I became president, and we may have never had that team if I didn’t start it. There’s an expression, “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” This is why it’s really important to have people with different life experiences be a part of the policy process.
In our current post-truth society, what challenges do you encounter in setting an effective policy agenda when people refuse to accept facts as a basis for policymaking?
I could talk about this for hours. After the 2016 election, we faced some existential questions. How can we influence people to make good policy decisions if we can’t have a set of facts that we agree on? There is a hardened minority in this country who will see the world through the lens of Donald Trump’s words. But I think there is a stronger majority who are focused on facts more now than ever. We live in a post-truth world for lots of voters—but not all voters.
A major issue in our politics is that we face asymmetric issues—asymmetric polarization, asymmetric belief in government, and an asymmetric belief in facts. That is a big challenge of our time that I have not been able to solve, but I do feel comforted by the fact that a strong majority of people adhere to facts.
As we approach the 2020 election, what should be the focus of the Democratic party?
Trump’s behavior in office is so spectacularly aberrational, you could talk about how he is a terrible president all the time, but you have to show people from the base to the middle that you want to solve their problems. Sometimes our most progressive proposals are unnecessarily divisive. It’s important to have ideas that are bold and that solve the country’s problems, but they shouldn’t alienate a moderate group of voters.
It’s critical for the party to unify once we have a nominee, whoever that person is. In the last election, a lot of people voted third-party. Hillary’s support amongst particular groups fell because people thought she was going to win and that they didn’t need to come out and vote. But Donald Trump has 94-percent support amongst Republicans. In order to defeat him, the most central thing is to reduce third-party voting and ensure that Democrats are united behind the nominee.