4 ms·

Lawmakers really used to, and still do, just blatantly disregard the interests of the people for the interests of the state.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
btilly 4y ago
Don't forget that for many decades "tough on crime" was an easy ticket to reelection for politicians. The same era saw the 3 strikes law. Which saw relative progressives like Hillary Clinton giving speeches about how it was needed to get "black super-predators" off of the streets. And if you were accused of being soft on crime, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton demonstrated that a Republican could win in 4 out of 5 states (despite starting behind in the popular vote) by harping on that enough.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  Clinton never said “black” super predators. > "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.
  - btilly 4y ago
    Fair point. She didn't use those words. But everyone understood her to mean that. Which is why https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-pri... calls this claim mostly true.
    - sarchertech 4y ago
      Regardless of what she meant, my issue was with putting it in quotes. I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously. Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black.
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        > I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously . Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black. If she thought gang members were predominantly young and black and she talked about combating them like the mob, labeling them as super predators with no empathy or conscience etc… what do you think she was consciously imagining? This is a weak defense if ever there was one.
        sarchertech 4y ago
        She probably thought something like “Gang members are bad because they kill people. Let’s stop gang members from killing people.” Without thinking through the the nuances of the long history of racial oppression that led the gang members to become criminals in the first place. The same way that people who were combating the mob didn’t consider the history of oppression that lead to the creation of the Sicilian mafia. I would argue that in this situation she was shortsighted and yes lacked empathy. But I don’t think there was any conscious racial animus there the way quoting “black super predators” makes it sound. I doubt she considered the racial component at all.
        btilly 4y ago
        The essay she got the phrase from is https://web.archive.org/web/20160307234335/http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-coming-of-the-super-predators/article/8160 https://web.archive.org/web/20160307234335/http://www.weekly.... Associating the phrase "predator" specifically with black and hispanic criminals was already well-established in politics. Particularly because of the the Willie Horton ad from 1988. I absolutely believed both then and now that she intended it as a racial comment. And her only reasonable defense would have been, "...but not ALL blacks..." However the policies that her husband pursued lead to the largest increase in blacks behind bars in history to that point, and had the effect of devastating black communities. So even that excuse would be thin. (Note, Bill Clinton is also the one who flew home during the 1992 primary campaign to witness the execution of a mentally retarded black man. About which he said, "Nobody can accuse me of being soft on crime.")
  - tunesmith 4y ago
    What's funny is that this feels somehow related to when she later referred to the "basket of deplorables". Like in some way she tried to carve out room for common ground in a group of people she disagreed with, by slicing them into two groups, one of which could be disregarded in her view. And in both cases it backfired.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    She has never been a progressive, and at the time that happened democrats were moving firmly to the right to try to capture some of Reagan’s base.
    - btilly 4y ago
      I said "relative progressive" because, relative to Republicans and the general public, she was. And she later did a lot to try to claim a progressive mantle. Particularly when she ran for President. But yes, Bill Clinton got elected in part by "moving to the center". Which was moving to the right relative to the Democratic base. Given that the Democratic base as moved sharply left since, comparing past and present positions can be quite jarring.
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        If by “left” you mean economically. I don’t see it. They have certainly moved to embrace racial and sexual minorities since then though.
        btilly 4y ago
        First of all left vs right has always been a spectrum of issues, with economics only being one. That said, the move leftward has been much sharper on race and sexual minorities. But not non-existent for economics. Particularly when it comes to social justice. For example, Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that pushes people off of welfare and into work, or simply dumps them into severe policy. This disproportionately made single mothers and blacks worse off. His position was slightly to the right of most Democrats at the time. But the Democratic party today is strongly for increased access to a wide variety of assistance programs for those in need. And programs that disproportionately hit the economically needy would not be supported by major Democrats today.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

btilly 4y ago

Don't forget that for many decades "tough on crime" was an easy ticket to reelection for politicians. The same era saw the 3 strikes law. Which saw relative progressives like Hillary Clinton giving speeches about how it was needed to get "black super-predators" off of the streets. And if you were accused of being soft on crime, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton demonstrated that a Republican could win in 4 out of 5 states (despite starting behind in the popular vote) by harping on that enough.

sarchertech 4y ago
Clinton never said “black” super predators. > "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.
- btilly 4y ago
  Fair point. She didn't use those words. But everyone understood her to mean that. Which is why https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-pri... calls this claim mostly true.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    Regardless of what she meant, my issue was with putting it in quotes. I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously. Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously . Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black. If she thought gang members were predominantly young and black and she talked about combating them like the mob, labeling them as super predators with no empathy or conscience etc… what do you think she was consciously imagining? This is a weak defense if ever there was one.
      - sarchertech 4y ago
        She probably thought something like “Gang members are bad because they kill people. Let’s stop gang members from killing people.” Without thinking through the the nuances of the long history of racial oppression that led the gang members to become criminals in the first place. The same way that people who were combating the mob didn’t consider the history of oppression that lead to the creation of the Sicilian mafia. I would argue that in this situation she was shortsighted and yes lacked empathy. But I don’t think there was any conscious racial animus there the way quoting “black super predators” makes it sound. I doubt she considered the racial component at all.
        btilly 4y ago
        The essay she got the phrase from is https://web.archive.org/web/20160307234335/http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-coming-of-the-super-predators/article/8160 https://web.archive.org/web/20160307234335/http://www.weekly.... Associating the phrase "predator" specifically with black and hispanic criminals was already well-established in politics. Particularly because of the the Willie Horton ad from 1988. I absolutely believed both then and now that she intended it as a racial comment. And her only reasonable defense would have been, "...but not ALL blacks..." However the policies that her husband pursued lead to the largest increase in blacks behind bars in history to that point, and had the effect of devastating black communities. So even that excuse would be thin. (Note, Bill Clinton is also the one who flew home during the 1992 primary campaign to witness the execution of a mentally retarded black man. About which he said, "Nobody can accuse me of being soft on crime.")
- tunesmith 4y ago
  What's funny is that this feels somehow related to when she later referred to the "basket of deplorables". Like in some way she tried to carve out room for common ground in a group of people she disagreed with, by slicing them into two groups, one of which could be disregarded in her view. And in both cases it backfired.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  She has never been a progressive, and at the time that happened democrats were moving firmly to the right to try to capture some of Reagan’s base.
  - btilly 4y ago
    I said "relative progressive" because, relative to Republicans and the general public, she was. And she later did a lot to try to claim a progressive mantle. Particularly when she ran for President. But yes, Bill Clinton got elected in part by "moving to the center". Which was moving to the right relative to the Democratic base. Given that the Democratic base as moved sharply left since, comparing past and present positions can be quite jarring.
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      If by “left” you mean economically. I don’t see it. They have certainly moved to embrace racial and sexual minorities since then though.
      - btilly 4y ago
        First of all left vs right has always been a spectrum of issues, with economics only being one. That said, the move leftward has been much sharper on race and sexual minorities. But not non-existent for economics. Particularly when it comes to social justice. For example, Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that pushes people off of welfare and into work, or simply dumps them into severe policy. This disproportionately made single mothers and blacks worse off. His position was slightly to the right of most Democrats at the time. But the Democratic party today is strongly for increased access to a wide variety of assistance programs for those in need. And programs that disproportionately hit the economically needy would not be supported by major Democrats today.