This article doesn’t ask the question directly, but it does make me wonder. Key quote:
I tend to agree more with Joe Klein though:
Bill Clinton was right to sign the crime bill, he was right to reform welfare. And Nixon was right to want to do similar things. But Nixon has been thoroughly villified for appealing to white voters’ racist tendencies, while Clinton has never really been held to account for using pretty much the exact same strategy. Either they were both right or they were both wrong.
People will deny this but Nixon’s Southern Strategy went a lot further than just being tough on crime or cutting welfare. Nixon basically told states that if they voted for Republicans the federal government would essentially ignore what happened to black people within their states. So you want to get tough on street crime and cut back on welfare? No problem. You want to establish de facto segregation? We’ll look the other way. You want to keep black people from voting? We won’t enforce the law. You want to lynch black people who make trouble over this? The federal government will only make symbolic protests.
Basically, what racists wanted in 1968 was a lot more extreme than anything they wanted in 1992.
I don’t see how any of what you said is correct though. Nixon’s administration definitely wasn’t run that way, and it’s hard to imagine how you reach southern voters by not telling them directly that you’ll do the stuff you describe. You must be confusing Nixon with Wallace, who actually was that explicit(and had a real shot at being the Democratic nominee four years later). The only thing I recall Nixon saying on those subjects was that we had to get tough on crime, drugs, reform welfare, and he was opposed to busing(who wasn’t?)
No, he’s describing Nixon quite accurately. You clearly don’t know enough about that time period. You also might want to go to YouTube and listen to some of the vintage tapes of Nixon and how he and his inner circle describe Blacks and Jews. He had a very low opinion of both, but he definitely had a high opinion of voters who could deliver the goods.
I don’t think Nixon was a KKK supporter or necessarily a segregationist. But it is absolutely true that he felt little sympathy toward Blacks and their struggle, and it was worth it to get more white voters in the south than to worry about black grievances.
The tapes came out late in his Presidency. No one is suggesting that Clinton actually has the same animus for minorities that Nixon did. But both threw African-Americans under the bus to appeal to white working class voters.
I was fighting on the front lines of the crime bill during Clinton’s administration, defending accused criminals in state and federal court. There were, and still are, many problems with our criminal justice system. Many involve race. Nevertheless, I disagree Clinton “threw African-Americans under the bus to appeal to white working class voters.” Clinton’s views were pretty mainstream at the time, and he would have to have been a Sanders-like politician to see what was wrong with it and advocate for true reform.
African-Americans found little to disagree with in Nixon’s campaign either. Either using hot button issues where race plays a major part is wrong for both parties or its not wrong for both parties. It cannot be wrong for Nixon and okay for Clinton(yet he should still apologize for some reason or who the hell knows what Democrats really think of his Presidency these days).
Yes, it is possible that they were both wrong. But there is a difference in supporting a policy that is misguided (Clinton) and pushing a policy in an effort to polarize race issues and appeal to whites (Nixon).
It wasn’t a byproduct of Nixon’s efforts, but the goal. Nixon staffer Kevin Phillips:
YOu keep trying to find behind the scenes differences in lieu of explaining how their policies were different as President, or how they may have campaigned differently. Both had similar goals- with the African-American vote pretty much set in stone, how to win among white voters who decided elections? They came to similar conclusions on racially charged issues.
Because they are irrelevant. YOu don’t appeal to voters with behind the scenes work. You do it by telling them that you’re going to rein in the “superpredators” and “end welfare as we know it”.
Then let’s have an argument about tactics meant to appeal to actual voters. Did Nixon rush to execute a mentally retarded man so that he could show how tough he was on crime?
I think you’re just trying to volley the discussion rather than having a debate in earnest, but I’ll bite.
There is a difference between a president who signs a crime bill, which at the time it was signed, had an apparent benefit to both blacks and whites. The benefits were evident enough that the bill enjoy support of a majority of the congressional black caucus. It is also worth pointing out that, unlike Nixon, who was the architect of the “southern strategy,” Bill Clinton did not push for welfare reform until he lost control of congress in 1994. He did push for the crime bill, but many aspects of that legislation also called for sweeping guns off of streets and more police patrols to keep urban neighborhoods safer. He also pushed for programs like Head Start and job training programs. He was also largely credited with being a compromiser when it came to welfare and unemployment benefits and sought middle ground against some republicans who wanted to gut federal program benefits. You may not be old enough to remember the government shutdown of 1995, but that was done in large part to push back against Tea Party style budget cuts that the House republicans had proposed.
Nixon, by contrast, was the architect of a political strategy that was, in every way, an affront to blacks. He ran his 1968 campaign on issues like “states rights,” which in 1968 had a very clear meaning: a Nixon presidency would, at minimum, not push for more civil rights legislation. Fortunately by that point, most of the legislative heavy lifting had already been done and the battles were in the federal court system. But Nixon’s campaign made it clear that disillusioned Dixie Crats had a new home in his party. There was less of the obvious racism of desegration and more of the implicit racism (attacks on welfare, de-funding public schools, de-funding public institutions at the state level). Clinton defended public programs that helped blacks, whereas Nixon’s republican party made it a strategy to eliminate public programs. The fact that Clinton occasionally compromised and met republicans in the middle doesn’t make those two even remotely close.
Nixon’s Southern strategy was in clear opposition against a Democratic party that had come out in favor of civil rights, and brought the rest of his party with him, allowing the Republican party to be the only safe haven for the bigot vote.
In order for this to be analogous to the Clinton, you would have to have a strong opposition on the part of the mainstream Republican party, with Republicans advocating in favor of saving the welfare state and stopping the war on drugs. Please provide cites to the screams from the right that Clinton had gone too far. while the left cheered his actions.
The worst that can be said of Clinton is that he borrowed some of the policies of the Republicans in opposition to the base of his own party.