A foreign policy evaluation of the race in California’s 29th district
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°50 | 4 October 2020
Situation
Angelica Dueñas is running against Democratic incumbent Tony Cárdenas to represent California’s 29th congressional district (election is on 3 November).
I compared Dueñas’ (quite good) foreign policy platform with Cárdenas’ actual votes since 2016. To Cárdenas’ credit, they’d probably have voted the same way about 90 percent of the time. But it’s in that 10 percent gap where it’s made clear that Dueñas’ foreign policy is for the working class, while Cárdenas’ remains for the One Percent.
Congress shapes foreign policy in two main ways
Specifically, through policy bills and spending bills (including NDAAs in the latter here because they’re policy bills that authorize spending). In order for a member of Congress to be progressive on foreign policy, they need to vote progressive on both types of legislation.
Cárdenas usually votes progressive on the former (policy bills) — he’s backed legislation to stop US involvement in the war in Yemen (H.J. Res. 37), halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia (H.Amdt. 561 to H.R. 2500), and repeal both the 2001 and 2002 AUMF (H.Amdt. 556 and H.Amdt. 555 to H.R. 2500).
But on spending bills, Cárdenas is indistinguishable from Republicans. He’s voted for every single one of Trump’s military budgets — which basically amounts to repeated endorsements of worsening inequality. So with Cárdenas’ annual approval, annual DOD spending has increased $107 billion since Obama’s last budget (FY2017-20):
^Source. “We cannot afford to continue down the path of endless and costly wars.” — Tony Cárdenas, before/after voting to fund endless and costly wars. (Source for quote.)
Dueñas is progressive, Cárdenas is not
Dueñas’ foreign policy platform includes a call for a 50 percent reduction in military spending, or ~$370 billion if we base it off FY21 levels. Two ways this exposes the faux-progressivism of her opponent:
1. It puts Cárdenas’ progressive foreign policy votes into perspective
I found the easiest way to come up with $370 billion is by borrowing from Rep. Barbara Lee’s draft resolution (below) that identifies $350 billion in potential savings and amending item 10 (highlighted) with Rep. Ilhan Omar’s amendment that called for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan (which Cárdenas voted against) to get you the remaining $20 billion.
If you go this route, you’ll notice that DOD’s massive budget buys some massive foreign policy fuckups. Lots of them. So what progressive votes Cárdenas does have in his name are overshadowed by the set of policies funded by the budget he supports every year:
2. It implicates Cárdenas’ domestic platform
Dueñas supports Medicare for All and Green New Deal. Put in the context of her recommendation above, what’s broadly being called for is a divestment from violent institutions and investments in productive ones instead. Same can’t be said for Cárdenas.
So at play here are two different perspectives on what public funds should do right here at home. Cárdenas has shown that if he were to come across $370 billion, he’d spend it on endless war. Conversely, Dueñas would put it toward healthcare or green energy. Here’s one way to express this difference between the two:
Jobs created by a $370 billion investment in:
...defense: 2,553,000
...green energy: 3,626,000 [+1,073,000 over investing in defense]
...healthcare: 5,291,000 [+2,738,000 over investing in defense]
Conclusion
For more on Dueñas’ working-class approach to politics, here is a useful/evocative discussion between her and Ryan Knight. Also Marianne Williamson just endorsed her.
Thanks for your time (and keep fighting for a better Congress),
Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.