Joe Biden has a poor track record on race relations

The argument

Proponents of this position argue the case from the record rather than from rhetoric: in his long political career, Joe Biden has taken regrettable positions on race issues, and they hold that the pattern spans decades rather than reflecting a single lapse. Two examples are drawn from his legislative career. In the 1970s, he called busing, where children were transported to schools outside their locality to promote desegregation, a "bankrupt policy". He also was a leading proponent of the 1994 Crime Bill which was instrumental in producing the mass incarceration problem in the US which disproportionately affects men of colour. Proponents treat the second as the more serious of the two, because its effects were structural and long-lasting: a law that shapes sentencing keeps operating on communities long after the politics that produced it have moved on. The record in office is placed in the same column. As Obama's vice president, Biden also must take responsibility for the administration's hostile immigration policy which resulted in 3 million people being deported, of which 1.7 million had no criminal record. The second figure carries the weight of the objection, since it describes people removed without the justification usually offered for removal. The final charge concerns the relationship rather than the policy. Biden also has a history of taking for granted the support of communities of colour, particularly the Black community, without delivering results. In May 2020, he said in an interview that "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black". Proponents describe this as a highly offensive remark and read it as revealing the assumption behind the record — that the support is owed rather than earned. On that basis they argue that on race relations, Biden cannot be trusted to deliver.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Biden has offered an apology of sorts for his “you ain’t black” remark, calling it “too cavalier” and saying he was being a “wise guy”, whilst also drawing attention to his record on race issues. He also said that the mass deportations conducted during Obama’s presidency were a “big mistake”. It is important not to place too much emphasis on Biden’s actions in the more distant past - his current election pledges are a far better guide to what he will do for race relations if elected president. We should allow for politicians to learn from and rectify their mistakes.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The record is substantially as described, but the premise flattens it. The 1994 bill passed with support from a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus and from mayors of cities facing high homicide rates, and the growth in incarceration began in the 1970s and was driven mainly by state sentencing. The deportation figures belong to an administration in which the president, not the vice-president, set immigration policy. Both are fair to raise; neither is his alone. [Rejecting P2] "Taking support for granted" is an assessment rather than a finding, and the premise offers a remark as evidence rather than a pattern of decisions. It also sets no benchmark — what delivering results would have consisted of, and measured against whom, is left unstated. [Rejecting P3] The step from the remark to the conclusion is the weakest in the argument. He withdrew it as too cavalier, and one sentence in an interview is thin evidence about four years of policy; the pledges, appointments and legislative programme are the better guide. The conclusion is also comparative, and nothing in the premises addresses the other candidate's record — showing that one is imperfect does not establish that the other is better.