What is the difference between the Southern Strategy and Bill Clinton?

[adaher]

@asahi

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’s policies also had benefits for everyone. This is less about attacking Bill Clinton than attacking the double standard.

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.

Clinton “defended” those programs by fighting for less cuts than what Republicans wanted. On affirmative action, he conceded the Republicans’ basic critique and called for “mending it, not ending it”. Nixon’s Republican party made no attempts to eliminate public programs. That came later, with the Reagan Revolution.

I will concede “states rights” as a code word at the time, although I’d note that the concept of states rights is pretty uncontroversial outside the civil rights realm.

I’m just trying to get you all to admit that Clinton’s electoral and governing tactics involved winning over white voters by acknowledging their worldview as correct. A stance that Hillary has had to repudiate in the face of pressure from a primary challenge on her left and BLM activists. Bill wouldn’t have to defend it if he hadn’t done it.

[adaher]

@Buck_Godot

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.

The Nixon administration’s civil rights record was pretty strong. Which is why George Wallace went back to the Democrats and nearly won the nomination four years later. A bullet is all that saved the Democratic Party from remaining the bigot party for decades longer.

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.

Which just happened to be mostly issues involving the white working class’ grievances against minorities.

[asahi]

@adaher

Clinton “defended” those programs by fighting for less cuts than what Republicans wanted.

His party didn’t control the purse strings. It’s a much different argument if the democrats had been in power. Then you could argue that a conservative Clinton was fighting against his liberal base. You can’t argue that because those dynamics simply didn’t exist. The president shut down the government precisely because he wanted to defend programs that would impact the poor, especially the black poor.

@adaher

On affirmative action, he conceded the Republicans’ basic critique and called for “mending it, not ending it”. Nixon’s Republican party made no attempts to eliminate public programs. That came later, with the Reagan Revolution.

Nixon called for reconsideration of Affirmative Action that involved quotas, but he didn’t materially impact Affirmative Action programs.

@adaher

I will concede “states rights” as a code word at the time, although I’d note that the concept of states rights is pretty uncontroversial outside the civil rights realm.

I’m glad you agree with me that Nixon’s use of state’s rights is loaded and you also agree that Clinton never came close to touching that one. States’ rights is absolutely controversial, even if it’s not controversial to republicans. After all, “states’ rights” to do what exactly – own slaves? Enact their own poll taxes?

@adaher

I’m just trying to get you all to admit that Clinton’s electoral and governing tactics involved winning over white voters by acknowledging their worldview as correct. A stance that Hillary has had to repudiate in the face of pressure from a primary challenge on her left and BLM activists. Bill wouldn’t have to defend it if he hadn’t done it.

Bill Clinton had to reassure white voters that his promoting the gains of black Americans would not come at the expense of white Americans. Hillary also has that same challenge. Every progressive candidate does.

[adaher]

Bill didn’t do that though. He conceded that Nixon had been right all along on almost every issue except for social spending.

And states’ rights are embedded in our Constitution. States have all powers that aren’t specifically granted to the federal government. This is not actually controversial, despite Democrats’ wishes to make it so. In regards to civil rights, the term is loaded and the federal government has a lot of power to enforce civil rights. But we do still have a federalist system and at least during the Bush years even many liberals paid lip service to the idea so that California could do some experimenting on environmental regulations and such.

[Thing_Fish]

@adaher

I’m just trying to get you all to admit that Clinton’s electoral and governing tactics involved winning over white voters by acknowledging their worldview as correct. A stance that Hillary has had to repudiate in the face of pressure from a primary challenge on her left and BLM activists. Bill wouldn’t have to defend it if he hadn’t done it.

Cheerfully conceded. Not going to dig for a cite right now, but Bill Clinton himself recently admitted the crime bill was a mistake that hurt the black community.

[Bridget_Burke]

@CaptMurdock

I think you just brought the concept of “non sequitur” to a whole new level. :dubious:

Non sequiturs are all that adaher has left. Does he have to learn to love The Donald? Can he pin his hopes on Loathsome Ted Cruz, who seems to have lost his way? Or does he still wish for a Republican White Knight Still To Be Named who will not be beaten to a pulp by Hilary?

The Crime Bill was unfortunate in the long run. But adaher knows nothing of the race-baiting architects of the Southern Strategy. It was a policy designed to appeal to the worst of angry segregationists, as the Republicans abandoned that Party of Lincoln thing.

Don’t just blame Nixon–here’s another Republican Hero on “state’s rights.”

On the campaign trail in 1980, Ronald Reagan gave an infamous speech in Mississippi, where he told assembled supporters that:

I believe in states’ rights… I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

It is perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement. To most people, it sounds like a statement on constitutional law. Yet to the residents of Nashoba County, where the speech was held, it is a clear call-back to what many still viewed as an illegitimate federal imposition: the civil rights agenda. Desegregation was fought bitterly throughout the South, and even drove the government to institute martial law in some areas.

I know he’s young–but where did he learn history?