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.
THE BOOK “THE COLDEST WINTER EVER” WAS HOT, I’M NOT GONE HATE…BUT AFTER READING THE BOOK ONLY TWICE, A FUNNY VIBE SPARKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER SISTA SOULJAH HERSELF DIDN’T KNOW WINTER SANTIAGA (CHARACTER IN THE BOOK) OR EVEN IF SHE EVER EXSIST OR NOT SOUNDS CHILDISH… HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YALL THINK.
Please don’t use the phrase “national security street cred” again. Ever.
Thank you.
Great blog, by the way.
Let’s not get hung up on names. I don’t think the Democrats should focus on independents, moderates, liberals or conservatives. They should focus on the average guy who is not rich and not benefiting from Bush’s tax cuts.
John Edwards has it right. There are 2 Americas: the rich and the rest of us. Bush serves the rich. Kerry will serve the rest of us.
The biggest problem for Kerry and the Democrats is the negative advertisements sure to be thrown at us. Every slur, every lie must be answered. And I think we should do this respectfully. The Democrats should not get into the gutter with the Republicans. Such a strategy will eventually show the population the BIG difference between the 2 parties.
attack: massachsetts liberal.
response: when that viet cong who wounded me caught me in his sites he didn’t say “i’ll let this one go becasue he is from massachusetts and a liberal.”
Our enemies don’t make these distinctions and neither should we.
Additionally about the Massachusetts Liberal label, the early history of Massachusetts is U.S. history. John Addams wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. which in turn was used as a pattern for the Constitution of the U.S.
Further to Mark Alan’s excellent defense of the Massachusetts Liberal label , how about this:
“I’m proud to be from the bithplace of such great Americans as Paul Revere, John F. Kennedy, and George Herbert Walker Bush. ”
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive (albeit self-serving) piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
I have been thinking about something similar to what Bob H just said. If you look at the presidential elections of the past 40 or so years, the guy with the most “sex appeal” has won almost every one. Not necessarily the most macho, but the most vital. Look at the match-ups and decide who would play the leading man and “get the girl” at the end of the movie. Reagan or Carter? Reagan or Mondale??? It is almost unbelievable that GHW Bush could find someone with less sex appeal, but he did, in Mike Dukakis. Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole were no contest. Al Gore almost pulled it out with “the kiss,” but then he reverted to his wonky form.
Kerry can easily top Bush, if he keeps up certain themes and practices. His war hero record and “I know something about aircraft carriers for real” is a great start. His distainful talk about W as the pretend Marlboro Man helps also. Drip by drip, the portrait of W as the effite son of a priviledged family really helps. Kerry may be rich also, but he served in the war rather than getting Daddy to get him into the guard (forget whether he actually served, all of us who lived through that era know what the deal was with the Guard at that time). Kerry may have gone to an elite prep school, but he played hockey there, while W was a cheerleader. The Harley may have been over-contrived, but the idea is right. Theresa can be a great help, if she continues to gaze at John with pride and admiration, like Nancy Reagan used to do. Laura Bush, who may well be a nice lady, has never really connected with the public.
Vigor and vitality, along with judgment and trustworthyness, should be main themes. We can win with them.
Paul
I just sent in the first of what I hope will be many contributions to the cause. I would like to make a superficial observation:
Before they even open their mouths, Kerry and Edwards present an image of fighting vigor, physical attractiveness, youthfulness, and optimism. Compare the increasingly haggard and drawn president, the angioplastic VP. The Dem team looks the part. Such things are important-look at California!
$100 revolution? Try $100 status quo. Astoundingly, we small donors are not the Party’s mad money ATM machine, where they can rack up the cash while selling access to the big bucks.
You want the money? Start fixing the crooked system.
Link is to the intelletually honest William Saletan’s look at yesterday’s data on the independent and Republican vote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096505
as a long time kerry supporter, I am very glad to see all of us coalesing around him, times will be rough b4 election day but we must stick together and get these clowns out of the white house. donated before and will donate money and time again.
I think many are seized by the same instinct–the first thing I did this morning was logon and give Kerry my hundred bucks. But I think the challenge should be higher–don’t simply give $100 but give whatever you can, whenever you can. I intend to make another contribution next month, and the month after, etc. so long as I have money to give. Just like paying the gas bill.
I’ve been having a lot of drinks with a lot of different democrats over the last few days, and I don’t know any who aren’t falling in with Kerry now that he is the nominee. Even the Kucinich voters are planning on turning out for Kerry. The only people I’ve spoken to who DON’T plan on voting for Kerry are the Republicans and the black-helicopter new-world-order people. And the latter probably aren’t as numerous in the population as they are in my drinking circles.
I was a Dean supporter who switched to Edwards in the last few weeks. I just donated to the Kerry campaign and will do all that I can to help him win (I also ordered two free bumper stickers from his website). I hope everyone else like me is doing the same.
> Does he need a Sista Souljah moment?
Doesn’t Nader’s candidacy already provide this?
Does he need a Sista Souljah moment? What should be the target?
He should try to neutralize the liberal tagging coming his way soon. Not sure how.
And yes, donate. (click on name.)
On your suggestion, I just donated to the Kerry campaign. Thanks.