Seth Masket did something important and admirable at Politico this week: He examined the historical premise for some advice being offered to President Biden by many voices and found it to be ill-founded:
“Joe Biden needs a ‘Sister Souljah Moment.’ At least, that’s according to the quickly congealing conventional wisdom in Washington. That is, Biden and Democrats are in dire danger of losing control of Congress next year, and the one thing that could save them would be by bashing someone to Biden’s left on matters of race.”
The allusion is to a speech famously made by Bill Clinton in the summer of 1992 (when he had already nailed down the Democratic presidential nomination) to a conference of the Jesse Jackson–chaired Rainbow Coalition criticizing the organization for holding a panel the previous day that included Sister Souljah. The rapper had recently made remarks related to the L.A. riots that some interpreted as promoting the killing of white people (a claim she denied).
Jackson (who had expressed pride in Souljah’s appearance at his conference) was sitting on the stage near Clinton as he spoke and understandably felt blindsided and exploited by what Clinton said. So it has gone down in legend as a “moment” when a Democratic politician pandered to swing voters (and perhaps to white racists) by conspicuously separating himself from Black political activists. And that, as Masket notes, is what some commentators want Biden to do to stem the political bleeding over controversies surrounding racial justice, including Black Lives Matter protests, the “defund the police” movement, and the alleged influence of critical race theory in public-school classrooms.
The principal trouble with the claim Biden can do wonders via a little measured race-baiting, Masket explains, is that it didn’t do Clinton much good in 1992. A lot of factors lifted him to victory that fall, but clearly it was the economy (stupid!) and the temporary withdrawal of Ross Perot from the race that were most important. There is little-to-no evidence that the Sister Souljah “moment” had any particular effect on the contest. Yet the legend persists:
“Is it possible that Clinton got some help on Election Day from his bashing of Souljah five months earlier? It’s possible, but unlikely. Campaign effects just generally don’t last that long. It was a very old story by then, and it’s hard to even discern much of an effect when the story was fresh. Polling that year shows that voters were more likely to trust Clinton on issues related to racial politics, but that was true prior to the Souljah moment, as well.
“So why is it important to interrogate this piece of political lore three decades later? Because clearly many opinion leaders take it as an article of faith that a Democratic president can make himself more popular by bashing advocates for racial justice. The evidence doesn’t really support this, but they make the argument anyway.”
I would go a step further than Masket in debunking the “Sister Souljah Moment” theory. I say this not because I have any insider information on what was going on in the Clinton campaign (or in the candidate’s mind) before he made that Rainbow Coalition speech. But I was an early Clinton supporter and later worked for the decidedly Clintonite Democratic Leadership Council, and I sure didn’t think the incident was mostly about race. Obviously, racists in the electorate probably perceived it that way, though few of them at that point in history were likely to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. The broader perception at the time was captured by Tom Edsall’s on-site report on the speech for the Washington Post:
“Clinton’s frank remarks seemed designed to demonstrate his willingness to challenge core Democratic constituent groups and to begin to break his image in the public as a “political” person who would bend to pressure from major forces within his party …
“The power of the Perot campaign, and growing public animosity to both the Republican and the Democratic parties, has been interpreted in the Clinton campaign as a powerful message requiring the Arkansas governor to attempt to regain the status of an ‘outsider’ candidacy — a status first lost to former Massachusetts senator Paul E. Tsongas, then to former California governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. and most recently to Perot.”
Indeed, the idea that Clinton was triangulating against Black folks generally on race was not borne out by the reaction from, well, Black folks, other than those very close to the justifiably insulted Jackson, as Steve Kornacki later observed:
“Clinton did not suffer any discernible fallout among black voters; in fact, many black political leaders — some nursing their own grudges against Jackson — used the occasion to throw their support behind Clinton.”
That could be in part because even if you think Clinton was pushing off the left, he wasn’t exactly moving right. In the same speech in which he chastised Sister Souljah for allegedly smiling upon the hypothetical killing of white people for the sins of their race, Clinton sounded some familiar populist themes that were entirely congenial to his audience:
“The speech included repeated attacks on the Bush administration, with a well received line about Vice President Quayle — ‘I’m tired of people on trust funds telling people on food stamps how to live’ — and praise for ‘the real story of Los Angeles — that most people who live in that city did not burn, loot or riot.’”
So what would a more nuanced understanding of the “Sister Souljah Moment” tell Joe Biden?
First of all, Biden is in a vastly different position than was Clinton in 1992. There is no Ross Perot on the horizon, appealing to a huge block of swing voters temporarily estranged from both parties. When Clinton rejected Jesse Jackson’s advice to run a base-mobilization campaign, there were plenty of reasons to fear that identification of Clinton with Democratic orthodoxy would be disastrous: At the time of the Sister Souljah speech, Clinton was running third in many polls behind Perot and George H.W. Bush. And when Perot did (temporarily) withdraw from the race right after the Democratic convention (I was involved in speech preparations for that convention and remember when the word came down: No more criticisms of Perot!), he basically confirmed that Clinton had succeeded in redeeming his pledge to become “a different kind of Democrat,” as the Los Angeles Times explained:
“’When we started … there was a climate there where we could win outright,’ Perot asserted. But now, he said, ‘the Democratic Party has revitalized itself. They’ve done a brilliant job, in my opinion, in coming back.’
:Perot did not elaborate on that point. But Morton H. Meyerson, a longtime Perot confidant and campaign adviser, later cited the Democratic Party’s platform as something that ‘Ross feels good about.’
“Meyerson added: ‘The Democrats seem to be listening to the people.'”
Biden, by contrast is operating in a highly polarized climate with few swing voters and no Perot-like centrist to challenge him. He has zero reason to gamble on separating himself rhetorically from his party.
Second of all, while Clinton was dealing with decades of perceived Democratic subservience to the party’s interest and constituency groups, Biden is dealing with a conservative media environment in which nothing he says will effectively contradict assertions that he wants to defund the police, open the prison doors, impose “woke” speech codes and racial quotas on colleges and workplaces, and usher in a socialist revolution. It’s all preposterous, but Biden has already tried and failed to challenge the smears with rhetorical signals. Some hypothetical equivalent to the supposed message Clinton sent in the “Sister Souljah Moment” would mostly be heard by those who feared, not hoped, he was separating himself from his party under pressure.
And third, even if Joe Biden thought he needed to “push off” the left (as though defeating Bernie Sanders in the 2020 presidential primaries wasn’t enough “pushing off”), he should stay far away from racially inflammatory subjects. Biden would have never won the presidential nomination without the kind of staunch Black support that destroyed the potentially strong nomination campaigns of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, even though Biden’s history on racial issues was far more problematic than Clinton’s in 1992. Besides, now and in 1992, the idea that “the left” and “Black voters” are somehow synonymous is simply wrong.
If Biden feels the need to make it clear he’s still the moderately progressive Democrat who hates racism but is by no means a socialist or especially “woke,” he should just say so, as often as possible. No “pushing off” is necessary.
Mitch, on how many blogs will you be posting that? Having paged past it on four different sites now, let me say: you’re not doing your candidate any favors. Spam is bad PR.
What to make of this electability issue? I must admit it probably makes up more than half of my criteria for a candidate. I think all top four candidates have pluses and minuses.
KERRY:
Pros: Foreign policy expertise, presidential bearing, a professional and disciplined campaigner (if not inspired)
Cons: Aloofness, his long record in the senate provides a fat target
EDWARDS:
Pros: Inspired campaigner, likeable, a southerner
Cons: Lack of foreign policy expertise, less than one term in the senate
DEAN:
Pros: Energized base, Governor
Cons: Undisciplined campaigner, less-than-appealing personality, lack of foreign policy expertise
CLARK
Pros: National security credentials, great bio, likeable, a southerner
Cons: New to politics and prone to rookie errors, thin on domestic policy
I think there might actually not be that much difference between all of them (with the exception of Dean, who I do think lags behind the other three.) However, this is the one issue where I tend to bow to the Republicans. Who are they releasing negative info on? It stands to reason that that’s who they’re scared of. It’s Edwards and Clark. I think they’re probably the two guys that have the best chance, but like I said, there’s probably not that much difference between any of them.
I don’t share the concerns voiced here regarding the electibility of Kerry. I think he can take Bush. I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be very good. It is true that Kerry is ponderous, but I think he’s improved since Iowa. I have concerns about Dean because he just doesn’t have that indefinable “presidential” quality. Neither did Bush 2, but he wasn’t “elected” either. Clark hasn’t measured up to expectations (my own), and Edwards is terrific, but too green.
Back to Kerry. Yes. He’s a northeastern liberal, and Rove will, no doubt, hammer him, but I see Kerry fighting this with issues the Repubs are weak on: economy, war on terror, lack of wpms, healthcare, etc.
Just an aside: my brother-in-law, a veteran from the Korean War, was watching Kerry on tv yesterday, and said that he thought Kerry was a good man, although boring, and that Kerry would definitely get his vote. So, there was a recognition of Kerry’s low excitablity, but it didn’t affect his opinion of the man. I think a lot of men will feel this way.
I would love to see you (Rudy) do a piece on Kerry’s electability. I’m a Clark supporter because of the electability question, but I’d like to see your take. Also, would Bill Richardson as VP give us a real edge in Arizona and Nevada?
Thanks,
The Kerry of ’03 is not electable. The “04 version may be – he’s much better on the stump and with crowds, far more likeable than you think, though of course not in Edwards’ league.
Labeling the Dem nominee as a liberal won’t work for Repubs – that’s not how they beat Gore. They beat Gore on personality and character.
I have to say, I think even the ’03 Kerry is better than Gore. I’d prefer Clark or Edwards, though. Dean dropped on my list after IA; I think he’s clueless about managing the media and his own image, let alone being poorly positioned on policy. I now think he’s flat out unelectable.
I’m with you, Upper Left. I think Kerry is far too Gore-ish. I’m a big fan of both Gore and Kerry, and I think both of them would make good presidents. But I don’t see how stiff, aristocratic Kerry can beat the charming, affable Bush.
No, that puts it too strongly. I don’t see how Kerry is more electable than any other major Democratic contender, including Dean. I think, as Ruy’s posts show, Bush is vulnerable, and he’s vulnerable to anyone. The electability question is not about who is electable and who isn’t. It’s about who is more electable than whom.
And I think Dean is more electable than Kerry, but less electable than Clark or Edwards.
I admit it, I am obsessed with the electability question.
For months I have been arguing that the CW on Dean’s “unelectability” is wrong. But as Dean kept getting hammered by his opponents and the media, you could watch him loose momentum and then start to slide in Iowa. The tag was that Dean was a New England, liberal who would end up like Dukakis.
Now Kerry is the “frontrunner.” Who is Kerry? Kerry is a New England, liberal (Ted Kennedy’s best buddy) with a twenty year-long voting record for Karl Rove to exploit. Kerry has most of the same problems Dean has with few of Dean’s positive attributes.
I find it truly ironic that in the Dems frantic efforts to come up with an electable candidate, they are now supporting the guy who would be easist to portray as a conventional, doctrinaire liberal.
Frankly, I don’t know who I support at this point: Dean is damaged, but looks like he will do well enough in NH to claim a comeback. Dean also has the money and the organization to continue fighting. Clark is showing his lack of experience as a politician; showing his vulnerability to the “not a true Dem” charge; and showing that Kerry’s win and Edwards strong second have taken the anti-Dean wind out off his sails. Edwards (my second choice after Dean) is getting a little momentum and will probably be the frontrunner in SC, but it is questionable whether he has the money or the organization to go national.
Do others share my concerns about Kerry’s electability? I can’t get over the image of Kerry as a tall Dukakis. Yes, he has a couple of medals to pin on his chest, but he opposed Gulf War I, and as the Max Cleland experience shows, the Repubs can assail the patriotism of anyone. Kerry’s stiff ponderous style and his often rambling, unfocussed speaking style really concern me. Kerry looks O.K. but I think he is too open to attack and ill-prepared to defend himself.
To put it in another way, I have been trying to argue that Dean’s centrist record as Governor would eventually overcome his superficial image as a ultra-liberal. On the other hand, Kerry’s superficial image as a moderate, careful alternative to Dean will ultimately be undermined by his doctrinaire, liberal record as Senator. Irony is everywhere.
Good questions, tstreet. It’s nice of Ruy to present the poll statistics, but there’s no context to really judge their significance. If somebody did that sort of thing, it would be invaluable.
Does anyone know how this thud compares to past SOTU by Bush and others. An historical perspective might be interesting and instructive.
As for Dean, it’s only going to get worse as he leasves the cold confines of New Hampshire. It is now between Kerry and Edwards, with Kerry with a seeming slight edge in electability. The current polls bear that out. Still hoping for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Experience and magic, a hard to beat combination.
Perhaps Dean could play a useful roll in a future Kerry/Edwards administration. Now if I could just peel that Dean bumper sticker off my car. In a perfect country, one not so freaked out by fear and terrorism, perhaps Dean could prevail, but not this year. While he is generally right on the issues, I just don’t think he has the resonance to go all the way. But if Kerry and or Edwards can win, they will owe Dean a note of thanks.
Off Topic rant, spiel, pitch… what have you:
Why Support Howard Dean…?
Ever since former Vermont Governor Howard Dean entered the race for president two years ago, he has been the leader in setting the debate. Dean stood up to George W. Bush when few others would and pressed other Democrats to do so as well. Howard Dean has energized the base of the Democratic Party, and as the candidate of hope, vision, courage, and experience, has created a real chance for at victory for working people in 2004…
Dean Delivers Health Care
While other candidates endlessly talk about healthcare, Howard Dean, who is also a medical doctor, has delivered it. While Governor of Vermont, Dr. Dean provided healthcare coverage for 99% of children under 18, for low- and middle-income families, for seniors and the disabled, and for expectant mothers in the state. He also required that mental illness and substance abuse receive the same coverage that serious physical illness does. Gov. Dean also provided a prescription drug coverage program for seniors and the disabled while Congress talked about it. Because of a strong commitment to helping seniors live productive lives at home, Gov. Dean shifted funds from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care, so more seniors could live with dignity in their own homes. Gov. Dean’s vision for the future includes an effective and practical kind of social responsibility. His Success By Six program in Vermont places a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, with visits to the homes of all new parents who request help (91% do). This long-term vision is designed to help prevent child abuse, which has dropped 45%, which in the long run, creates healthy, productive, fully functional family support that will keep these children out of prison when they grow up. Gov. Dean did all this, while balancing the budget, cutting taxes and not by slashing funding for education, police, fire departments and other vital services.
Job Creation and Fiscal Responsibility
In his eleven-year tenure as Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean created 20% more good-paying jobs, lowered the unemployment rate, and raised the minimum wage. He also balanced the budget year after year–and he did so while cutting taxes twice, responsibly, and while providing funding for health care, school reform, and the protecting the environment. When Gov. Dean took office in 1991, he inherited a record deficit. When he left office eleven years later, he left the state with a record surplus and a solid rainy day fund in case of an economic down-turn. Because of Gov. Dean’s fiscal management skills, he was able to pay down the debt and take Vermont from the lowest bond rating in New England to the highest. With the Bush Administration giving trillions of dollars of irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy and shifting the taxes to state and local governments while charging it to our children and grandchildren in the form of debt, the country is going to need an experienced fiscal manager to pull us back from the brink of economic disaster.
The (right kind of) Money to Win
On January 1, 2004, the Dean campaign announced another quarter of record-breaking fund-raising, citing $15.38 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. This put Dean at $40.78 million for the year. But with nearly 300,000 contributors and an average contribution of under $100, Dean is not beholden to special interests or fat-cat donor, but to us, the people. In addition he can go back to the well again and again. It’s a source of funding that is unlikely to dry up, making a 50-state primary strategy possible to fight for restoring American prosperity to everyone. In addition, in a savvy general election strategy, the Dean campaign decided to forgo matching funds. Giving up this public financing will make Gov. Dean financially competitive with George W. Bush and his millions of dollars from fat-cat special interests. By opting out of the tax funded campaign system, the Dean campaign is not required to adhere to limiting primary spending limits – limits that would surely cripple any Democratic presidential campaign by March of 2004 and allow Bush to attack our candidate without the ability to respond. With Gov. Dean’s proven record of balancing budgets, expanding healthcare and creating jobs, they had better worry. Everyday people, when they learn who Gov. Dean is, and look at his record will see that he is a REAL leader and support him.
You should too.
The above is from a new two-sided flyer “Tired of affordable healthcare?” which is part of the “Re-Select Bush” guerrilla campaign I have up on my Gore4Dean website. (http://www.gore4dean.com/why.html)
This piece shows on one side, Washington/Bush’s failure to address the serious issue of affordable healthcare. The back has the above copy which lays out the solid record and real reasons why everyone should support Howard Dean. PLEASE download and distribute it as far and as wide as possible.
p.s. if you are so inclined to donate to Dean for America, please consider hitting the bat via my Dean Team bat on my website for the effort.