Lauren Reinhold and Colin McRoberts are running for the US House as Democrats in Kansas's first district, gerrymandered to include all of Western Kansas and Lawrence.
LAWRENCE — I interviewed Lauren Reinhold and Colin McRoberts, the two Democratic candidates for the US House of Representatives in Kansas District 01. While they have several differences between them, they are both ultimately – and predictably – far from ideal.
The “Peoples’ Town Hall” event, hosted by the KU chapter of the Young Democrats (KU YD) at the ECM last Tuesday, was an opportunity for voters to hear from their options for alternatives to Tracey Mann, the Republican incumbent representative for KS-01. The district includes Lawrence, Manhattan, and most of northern and western Kansas, making it the largest district in the state in terms of land mass. Lauren is a former National Labor Relations Board member and litigator. Colin is a KU professor in the Business School with a background in negotiations and research conspiracy theories.
The event started with opening remarks from the KU YD executive board and faculty sponsor, in which they noted that Mann declined an invitation to the event, excusing himself because congress is currently in session. The format for the event was highly structured. The moderator asked five pre-prepared questions and three ostensibly randomly-selected questions from those submitted prior by audience members during the event.
Candidates hesitated to move left of the moderator's position
KU YD asked the candidates about the ongoing war in Iran, state-wide coalition building, tariffs, abolishing ICE, and attacks on higher education
On Iran, where the US and Israel have already killed thousands of people, Reinhold condemned the US’ “immoral” bombing campaigns, suggesting that “we can’t be doing that” and that “letting Israel order us to go to war” is wrong. McRoberts emphasized that transparency is the path forward to prevent future actions like this one, and that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a “wet drunk.”
Both answers were partially responsive to this current crisis, particularly Reinhold’s comment on Israel and McRoberts’ on Hegseth. Yet while both candidates voiced the need to prevent this sort of aggression in the future, neither spoke to the more foundational origins of this crisis in the US’ status as a reactionary imperial global force. While it would have been nice to have had more transparency around the US’ most recent round of bombing operations, knowing who dropped the bombs has never and will never be sufficient to stop the bombing.
On coalition building across Kansas, McRoberts leveraged his two key endorsements from Kansas Governor John Carlin and local Youtuber Mr. Beat. Reinhold, on the other hand, offered platitudes, “I love progressive policies… but I know policies will need to be incremental,” pitting “Lawrence ideas” against the rural ones of the rest of the district. Reinhold continued by arguing that “we have to be incremental in this,” that “we have to meet these disaffected rural voters… where they’re at,” and that we need to “moderate our views.”
While McRoberts’s endorsements don’t represent any serious progressive – let alone radical – flank for his campaign, perhaps they will move voters from the rest of the district. Reinhold, however, is repeating the classic centrist liberal suggestion that rural people are simply too scared of universal access to healthcare and other such social-democratic policies. Tactics like this are regularly used to stifle the pace of even modest reforms. To suggest we on the ‘left’ must “moderate our views” rather than phrasing them to respond to the needs of the masses reveals that Reinhold shares the same lack of principles as those in the mainstream of the Democratic party, so fearful to make waves that they never try to swim.
On tariffs, Reinhold suggested we need to strengthen SNAP benefits, pass a Farm Bill that includes good insurance, and pursue immigration reform which ensures that “farmers have the employees they need to do the work, while McRoberts stated that candidates need to make clear to voters that tariffs are a tax on them, pointing out how Mann is in part responsible for the lack of rural food aid and stable farm subsidies today.
While restoring SNAP benefits and supporting community food projects are worthwhile endeavors, Reinhold’s frame for the necessity for and nature of immigration reform relies on the premise that petty-bourgeois farm owners should be able to more efficiently exploit brown people for cheap labor. This sort of dehumanizing rhetoric makes inhuman immigration enforcement palatable to the public, normalizing the nauseating and painful conditions those in meat packing plants and cropfields are made to endure.
On ICE, McRoberts made clear that his position is “Abolish ICE,” elaborating that, “if we waffle on that, we concede ground that shouldn’t be conceded. Still, he nevertheless thinks we still need some government body to do some of what ICE does now and that the 2024 immigration bill, a decidedly right-wing proposal, was a good idea. For reference, the Border Act of 2024, would have authorized $20 billion for increased detention capacity, put stricter limits on asylum applications, and capped the number of daily border crossings. Reinhold suggested that “ICE is out of control,” both with its actions and in funding, but ultimately concluded that “ICE should be performing certain statutory functions” and that “we need ICE there to remove people who are violent offenders.”
McRoberts’ was at least willing to say “abolish ICE” loud and clear. Reinhold, however, refused to take this a stance towards eliminating this modern vestige of slave patrols and started citing violent offenders – a proportionally tiny section of the American immigrant population.
Lastly, on higher education, Reinhold suggested pursuing DEI initiatives, reinstating accountability in the Department of Education, protecting federal grants, and funding students were necessary to avoid the “slippery slope to fascism.” McRoberts, a member of the United Academics of KU contract bargaining team, reiterated that we need to prevent the “vandalism” of both the hard sciences and the humanities to ensure we can “export our education” to international students who come here and pay “full freight.”
Reinhold’s specific mentions of DEI and stopping fascism were appreciated, and somehow more compelling than some of what the actual professor had to say. McRoberts’ appeals to the tenants of the global university were questionable, though his focus on protecting all schools, rather than just the dominant ones, was refreshing. It was especially nice to hear that from a business professor.
The audience was concerned about issues close to home
The audience asked questions about natural disaster early warning systems, food deserts, and incorrect perceptions about rural Kansas among Democrats.
On early warning systems, McRoberts referenced the current FEMA director claiming he teleported to a Waffle House during a bender, before acknowledging that the recent tornadoes through the area show the need to rebuild lost services. Reinhold explained the lack of reliability in warning systems as a reverberating consequence of DOGE and climate change, also noting how the FEMA chair, who “is not mentally-well” should be impeached.
Both of these answers seemed adequate, particularly Reinhold’s mention of climate change and its salient effects.
On food deserts. Reinhold suggested local food initiatives in the next Farm Bill and restoring SNAP benefits to address the growing issue. McRoberts responded that existing provisions in the Farm Bill are inadequate, instead pointing to finding co-ops and removing overhead restrictions on SNAP benefits.
As discussed above on the question of tariffs, co-ops and SNAP are good, though particularly for food deserts, there is more to be said about the kinds of crops, which are not for human consumption, that Kansas farmers are economically compelled to grow.
On Democratic understandings of rural Kansas, McRoberts spoke to the barrier of partisanship, with the need to focus on Mann as an unpopular individual rather than a popular partisan. Reinhold suggested that “we cannot run far left” and win over rural voters, pointing to particular issues, like immigration and USAID, as common ground on which a coalition can be built.
Neither candidate spoke of the best tactic to approach the working class, which is to show they are genuinely interested in meeting everyday needs and have plans to do so. In particular, Reinhold’s suggestion that we, as those left of the moderate wing of the Democratic party, must undercut our convictions to appeal to the reactionary tendencies of rural Americans is a classic liberal tendency to compromise with positions fundamentally incompatible with the platform of a progressive – let alone revolutionary consciousness. We should make strategic concessions when necessary, but compromise from the onset sets us on an incrementalist path with the same result of Zeno’s Paradox: we never get anywhere.
When questioned about progressive action the candidates faltered
After the event, I got the chance to ask three questions of my own on behalf of The Rose to both of the candidates individually.
My first question concerned Political Action Committees (PACs):
Tracey Mann has taken ~$87,000 from the fossil fuel lobby, ~$130,000 from the pro-Israel lobby, and over $450,000 from the broader agricultural lobby. Will you commit now to refusing money from corporate PACs if offered?
Reinhold said that she would not take any money from a PAC that is not aligned with progressive values, which means she would not take any money from corporate PACs. She specifically noted that she would not take money from AIPAC, saying “no no no no no no” when pressed specifically about AIPAC. McRoberts said that he would take money from groups on a case-by-case basis where he could publicly justify why he did so, which means likely not from any corporate PACs. McRoberts also explicitly said he would refuse money from AIPAC.
My next question concerned healthcare:
Both of you have spoken about the need for rural hospitals, with Lauren focusing heavily on the issue and Colin addressing the declining national healthcare budget. However, neither of you have come out in favor of Medicare for All or other such national healthcare policy. What policy elements would your national healthcare plan entail, and why not advocate for a single-payer model which would guarantee healthcare for all?
Although it wasn’t listed in his policies online, McRoberts noted that he had actually come out in support of Medicare for All at a forum earlier this month in Oberlin, KS. He said he believes we need to arrive at that point gradually through piecemeal policies that first address the most pressing concerns as America builds towards a single-payer model similar to all other ‘developed’ countries. Reinhold expressed concern about articulating Medicare for all to a rural audience, emphasizing the need to moderate policies that she expressed earlier in the forum. She did suggest that it may be possible to achieve a single-payer model eventually, but not under the Trump administration and not until congress has a Democratic majority.
Like with the question on ICE, the positions of these two candidates are not far apart from one another, but the candidates’ choices in how to frame them were more stark. McRoberts explicitly supports Medicare for All, but then adds the implicit caveats about the need to achieve it incrementally. For Reinhold, while she paid some lip service to the single-payer model, suggesting a similar path to McRoberts, she was unwilling to name it outright.
My last question concerned Israel:
Amidst the ongoing US aggression against Iran, Israel has been attacking Lebanon, seemingly with as much total impunity as they did in conducting the most visible genocide in history over the last few years, in which they killed at least 75,000 Palestinians. Will you recognize Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide, and how will you prevent further humanitarian atrocities from this state we support with our tax dollars, logistical support, diplomatic cover, and bombs?
McRoberts said clearly that Israeli conduct constitutes a genocide, plainly and clearly. He said that the US needs to restrain Israel, both for its sakes and those subject to its violence. He believes that both Israel and Palestine have “a right to exist” and that the US should put humanitarian conditions on any future aid to Israel. Reinhold said that Israel had clearly committed war crimes and that the humanitarian situation was terrible, but she declined to openly declare Israel’s actions as genocide, asking if she could give a more complete answer later. In a follow-up statement to The Rose, a representative of Reinhold’s campaign confirmed their position that Israel had committed war crimes, that they would support international accountability for Israeli leadership, and that they support a 2-state solution along 1967 borders – a fundamentally conciliatory position to zionist colonialism. They also suggested that it is “a fact” that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East, that we shouldn’t “blow [long-standing deals] up hastily,” and that candidates in this district need to “be careful about the words we say” and how to “frame things with voters” who disagree with calling Israel’s conduct a genocide.
This is perhaps the most important question I asked, as it is a litmus test for how the candidates are choosing to approach this political moment. The Overton window is shifting within the Democrats’ constituency, with 80% of the liberal base holding a negative view of Israel. McRoberts’ answer, like those he gave for M4A and ICE, was good in at least one way: he said the thing. Of course, despite two years of ongoing genocide, one would still be hard pressed to find a mainstream Dem willing to advocate for outright Palestinian Liberation, and McRoberts was no different, immediately asserting the “right to exist” of Israel as well as Palestine. For Reinhold, however, she was not willing to even recognize the truth of the facts on the ground. Again citing the fear of being perceived as too lefty by rural Kansans, she and her team appealed to the need to avoid saying words that might rock the boat too much. Still, even though Republicans tend to be more supportive of Israel, 41% still suggest they view it unfavorably. More importantly, however, any candidate more focused on rehashing old zionist talking points about democracy and Israel’s status as an important ally than they are on calling genocide out as such is not worth our time.
The merits of electoral politics have their limits
We will never vote our way to socialism. At best, we can slow the bleeding of the dying, imploding American empire by electing the less corporate, less capitalistic, less right-wing candidate out of the usual two presented to us. To achieve more liberatory ends, however, we must look beyond voting, and dedicate the vast majority of our political effort to revolutionary action. Still, if voting is a tactic a hundredth as good as party organizing, mutual aid work, and other such strategies, it is perhaps worth it to give it a hundredth of our attention. In a race like this one where there are no socialist candidates, however, is it even worth that much focus?
On one hand, voting allows us to choose our opponent, and it is more likely McRoberts or Reinhold would listen to our needs than Mann ever did. On the other hand, neither candidate shares our vision for the future, and so voting for either of them does nothing to advance socialism. Pragmatically, voting for the comparatively better candidate in competitive races makes practical sense and is worth the time of anyone able to do so. However, there are hard lines that, if a candidate crosses them, we ought to withdraw providing any support whatsoever. For instance, Kamala Harris and Sharice Davids took over a million each from AIPAC, which for me, was a bridge too far, even as a matter of harm reduction.
How each of us chooses to balance this dilemma between pragmatism and principles is a question we must grapple with; How good is “good enough” to cast a ballot for a subpar candidate? In this race, we must ask ourselves, what is the bare minimum our representative needs to do for us to justify casting our ballot for them.
Comments
Post a Comment