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.
2’nd term runs are referendums on the incumbent. Let this crew dig themselves deeper (can’t be stopped anyway), then sod them over in November.
Kerry should say nothing specific about Iraq.
It’s still ‘the economy stupid’ anyway.
“But do we want to have Kerry pull out & spend the rest of our lives taking crap from republicans accusing us of being soft on terrorism?”
That’s one of my fears as well. Letting Bush win is not an option in my opinon. Therefore Kerry surrogates must make the point that this is a Bush, GOP fubar and point fingers and make the point as often as possible. Make GOP mean Iraq mean failure.
“they know they will still be there.”
hmmm. This is true. And there is virtually no hope that there will be a “democratic” iraqi army to hold up a government in the next ten years – even by administration estimates. My idea was that there would be something like a permanent international monitering force.
But we would have to have a cease-fire first.
But do we want to have Kerry pull out & spend the rest of our lives taking crap from republicans accusing us of being soft on terrorism? Better in that case if we let Bush win so that he has to take the heat.
“I don’t like this, because it will play to the strength of the insurgents. If moderates know that the Americans are going to leave bu the insurgents are going to stay, that will hamper their ability to stick their necks out and help us and themselves.”
They already know that eventually we are going to leave – just like Ho & Giap knew we were eventually going to leave. And as in that earlier lesson, they know they will still be there. That has always been a given. I don’t mean to be cruel, but you, Bush and the Neo Cons must be the only people who didn’t understand that little minor detail
>>It seems to me that the “stay the course” position >>amounts to little more than hanging on and hoping >>things settle down somehow.
Indeed, this is the way the Bush administration is playing it, but that is because they can’t think of any other way to handle it and keep it all for themselves.
I can see only three possible outcomes:
1) The Bush adminstration holds on as long as they can, taking casualties indefinitely while Halliburton squeezes as much out of it as they can. Cynically and rather blatantly, they have been publicly informing the Iraqis that they should not expect to have any control of their country for quite a while.
2) Halliburton decides Iraq is not going to be a long term money-maker. The Bush administration declares victory and runs. The nastiest people quickly take over.
3) The whole mess gets dumped into Kerry’s (our) lap. He goes on TV and says “we’re sorry for having been such *******s. We’ll do whatever it takes to get you to help us out with this mess.” The pain gets spread around.
None of these options are really good, but that’s why people tell you not to run with scissors or start wars when they’re not absolutely necessary…
What all you responsible folks seem to be overlooking is that there are some damn good reasons for “just getting the hell out,” starting with the fact that our presence in Iraq is now probably the single strongest destabilizing factor in the situation.
People are feeling sick of it, sure, but they’re also realizing that even a very modest version of the neocon war aims is simply unachievable. We simply cannot suppress the insurgency except by taking measures that will turn ever more Iraqis against us.
It seems to me that the “stay the course” position amounts to little more than hanging on and hoping things settle down somehow. Hardly a day has gone by that hasn’t made that outcome less likely.
Additionally, what Andrew said.
This is a pollster trying to make foreign policy. Best to keep your opinions on these matters to yourself, Ruy.
I don’t like this, because it will play to the strength of the insurgents. If moderates know that the Americans are going to leave bu the insurgents are going to stay, that will hamper their ability to stick their necks out and help us and themselves.
All this rhetoric about doing the right thing, sounds nice, but in the meantime “how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
I have no problem with Kerry reframing himself on the issue, but in the end, he needs to blame Bush and the neo-cons and come up with some sort of “Peace with Honor” plan a la… gulp…Nixon and get us out and turn it over to Iraq. I have no problem with helping Iraq fix itself, but I see no point in staying where we are not wanted and outside of Chalabi, I don’t see that we are wanted.
My question is somewhat unrelated to the Subject, but who should Kerry choose as his running mate to maximize the likelihood of winning in November? With six months to go, I think we can be almost 100% certain that Iraq is still going to look bad. The only wild cards are the discovery of vast caches of WMDs (and I don’t nean a token sarin grenade here and there) or the possible impact of another terrorist strike on U.S. soil. Conversely, the economy is probably going to look slightly better as well — unless there is another 9/11.
It seems to me as if Kerry wouldn’t gain as much from choosing John Edwards in case the worst news is related to the Middle East rather than the economy. Kerry’s shortcomings in the “personal likability” department would also seem to matter less in case there is a general consensus the country is in a crisis. If this happens (and there is every sign the string of bad news from Iraq will continue for months), Kerry would arguably be better off by choosing a running mate who is similarly competent/experienced and probably is good at rallying the Democratic ground troops too. I think the somewhat unexciting Dick Gephardt might be ideal, or maybe some other veteran politician with excellent credentials as an anti terrorism policy wonk?
MARCU$
Just to followup on my previous post, here’s how Kerry could position his stance: “I know many people are at a point where they are merely seeking the fastest way out of Iraq, and maybe that would be a politically popular thing to do, but I’m not going to pursue a policy that may be damaging simply because it’s good politics. We have to do the right thing here for ourselves and for the Iraqi people.”
This could help Kerry counter one of the most rampant criticisms of him, that the does everything by first putting his finger in the wind.
In my view, Iraq is bad news for Bush anyway you look at it, and, somewhat paradoxically, Kerry will do himself the greatest benefit even politically if he declares his own policy to be above politics.
I think Andrew has it exactly right. Kerry cannot and should not advocate specific tactics regarding the war. The war shifts too quickly and he will be vulnerable to charges that he is second-guessing the President during a time of war. Rather, he needs to continue to portray himself as (1) a veteren and war hero and (2) a person with years and years of foreign policy experience. He needs to speak in generalities about values based foreign policy, involving the international community and competence. When people, one by one or in droves, are convinced that W. is screwing this up to a faretheewell, they will see Kerry as a viable alternative.
I pretty much agree with most of the commenters above. Kerry’s proposed treatment of Iraq should be the first example of how a GROWNUP deals with a difficult international situation, not still another example of a political football, or an ideological hobby horse.
Here’s my view of what Kerry should do. Figure out what’s right. Do and say what’s right.
Some reframing of his position to accommodate politics is of course reasonable, but if he positions his proposed policy as being the RESPONSIBLE, rational thing to do, one NOT subject fundamentally to polls and politics, then even politically it will be a breath of fresh air on the subject of Iraq, and foreign policy more generally.
Beyond all the other problems of Kerry’s tacking hard on the subject of Iraq, it immediately presents a great political danger: it invites the criticism that he is, once again, doing a flip flop.
What remains difficult about Iraq policy, even if one removes the politics of it, is that it is fundamentally hard to know what to do. The correct policy itself might easily change depending on what happens on the ground in Iraq. This would require a lot of open endedness in anything Kerry should propose.
In my view, Kerry’s proposed policy on Iraq should be the first test of a Kerry Presidency, giving us a taste of what he would do in foreign policy, his great strength, should he become President, with the election behind him.
In the early 50’s there was the Korean War…despite the satisfactory economy, Americans were frustrated by ongoing American casualties in Korea. Dwight Eisenhower made a campaign speech and said, “If elected, I shall go to Korea.”
My father stopped in his tracks from his usual pacing, turned to my mother and me (15) and said, “There’s the election!”
It was the election.
Eisenhower got all but 89 electoral votes. Adlai Stevenson,
brainy though he was considered to be, crashed and burned.
All of the social progress and programs Kerry talks about won’t happen unless the Iraq War ends. Through both legislative giveaways to the rich and corporations and choosing this war, Republicans have succeeded in what has been their aim–“starving the beast”.
I believe that this is called “being a grown-up”. Children are notorious for walking away from problems, it’s far easier to walk away than fix things. It pains me to agree, but Colin Powell was correct with his Pottery Barn analogy – and we broke it. As much as I’d love to see us get out of Iraq painlessly, it’s not gonna happen, it’s gonna cost us lots of money and, grievously, many more lives.
Wouldn’t we be better off saying thus: This administration lied to us (both Congress and the public) and buffaloed into a war we didn’t need to fight against an enemy who was not a threat. Wishing it were otherwise does not change the facts in hand.
Finally, with respect to the $25B – I don’t think that there’s any real choice about supporting it. However, there is nothing that prevents the Democrats from pressing really, really hard for adult supervision of the spending. Let the r’s try and defend the position of not holding the administration strictly responsible and accountable.
Kerry won’t get anywhere proposing a plan to unscramble Bush’s omlette. All he needs to do is point to Bush’s incompetence and remind people what he would have done different, everything from Tora Bora to the UN to WMD to military preparation to coalition building and on and on. It isn’t rocket science, you just need to get the Wastrel Son out of the White House, Duh.
I’ve been impatient at times too with what I thought was Kerry’s lack of leadership on this issue. Not any longer. I don’t think he should offer more substantive comments on Iraq until after June 30th. Nothing good for Bush or our country will happen in Iraq before then, so, patience, let events unfold in Iraq, and more knives sharpen in DC. Let anti-occupation sentiment build. I think the American media is awake enough now not to fall back to sleep on July 1. Who can predict how July will play out in Iraq, except that it is likely to be just as bad as now? Which, I think, will dismay more of us, especially those not yet paying close attention. THEN let Kerry start speaking out.
This is a bizarre blog entry. The premise seems to be that Kerry’s position should be based entirely on what will fly politically rather than on what will actually work for Iraq and for our country. While I grant that he needs to present his position in a way that is politically palatable, there needs to be more too it than that.
In addition, the problem is not just that public opinion in the US is shifting, it is that the situation in Iraq is shifting rapidly. Bush has trouble enough keeping ahead of the situation on the ground, and he has some nominal influence on it. Kerry has absolutely no power to influence events at this point. Things will change so much every week for the next six month, there is no way that any position he takes could hold water for long.
So what should he do? He should make himself trustworthy. He should present general principals of international cooperation and values-based foreign policy. He should avoid specifics on the war (because they will go stale too quickly). In short, he should keep doing what he has been doing. Once he gets elected and takes office he can take stock of the situation and decide what actions are appropriate at that time.
they are over here, because we are over there-patrick j buchanan, the founding fathers warned of foriegn entanglments, the best way to get out of a mess is not to get in it in the first place, i haven’t voted democratic since 1987, but am so disgusted with this mess i wil hold my nose and vote for kerry, the only democratic i actually like was dean,i like john mc cain, “independents”, i think kerry can make friends with alienated former allies, bush not only angers me he frightens me, the major problem is NOT getting out of iraq, its getting the religious white out of the white house..
P.S. (answer the original question, Lawrence)
How do we get out?
BEG FOR HELP!!!!!!
I disagree. Although I personally was against the war from the start (taking over other countries that are going to hell within their own borders is not allowed), once we broke it, we have to see that it is fixed.
It is the “conservatives” who have been promoting the philosophy for decades that you don’t have to take care of other people. Let them reap the whirlwind as more and more “conservatives” say “to hell with the iraqis” and call on the administration to get out.
That leaves us as the responsible party and holding the moral high ground.
The difference then is that the democratic party wants to give a safe Iraq back to its people whereas the republican party wants to keep Iraq for itself. And, as long as Iraq is not stable, they have an ironclad excuse for doing whatever they want with it.
This is not a good position for democrats to find ourselves in, although it could be worse since W has proved to be such a scew-up.
Just imagine where we would be at if he had proven to be an efficient and successful imperialist…