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.
yep… everyone has gotta tell someone.. .create the cells and keep talking… it works.
Even then, we’re going to have to feel the pain. Sort of like cutting a leg off to stop the gangrene before it kills the patient.
AlleyKat, I’m talkin to every one I can. I lost a job because my boss was a Republican. My bumbper sticker says”Left Wing Christian For Kerry” you be surprised how many of us out there. I was always pretty much middle of the road voter untill this guy got selected by the supreme court. I know it’s not cool to have one party in control of the whole thing but, this time I hope the Dems get control of the House and Senate with Kerry as President. It’s going to take at least 2 to 4 years to get this mess GW and rest of the R controled Congress has screwed-up…..
Sara, you’re a little off on your medieval history. Connally served in the Trickster’s first term, then got caught up in the AMPI scandal. He joined the Republican Party in the spring of 1974, which prompted the great line that it was the first known instance of a rat jumping onto a sinking ship.
Bless you, Ed. Please talk to any Bush-supporting friends. I wish I could understand how Republicans can support Bush when there are intelligent, consistent, well-informed Republicans (who I may not necessarily agree with) who could move their party forward with honor.
I was one of those misinformed voters who voted for Bush. I liked that compassionate conservative bull XXXX . Personally, I think the extrmeist religion thing he has going on is a big turn off with me and I was happy Kerry made reference to it in his speech. When did God become a Republican?
The bounce may not have shown up much in the first horse-race polls Monday, but all polls I’ve seen later in the week have shown at least some Kerry-ward movement, and various state polls (from ARG and not-so-credible Rasmussen) also look brighter. Plus, as many have said, the poll internals are all so solid Kerry that you have to figure many of the undecided are just Kerry votes waiting to happen.
I heard reports that on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade this morning, traders seeing the job numbers broke into a chant of “Kerry! Kerry!”. Can anyone confirm this? We may view this as the day the back of the Bush administration was broken — a clear end to job growth (maybe going to negative territory), and renewed fierce fighting in Iraq.
Sara, that’s an extraordinary report if true. It reminds me of 1980, when Gene McCarthy and Ralph Abernathy came out and endorsed Reagan. It was obvious Carter was in unusually deep trouble. Any guesses on who these mystery statesmen are?
I understand plans are in the works for a leadership PAC made up of at least four retired GOP Senators, all with extensive Foreign Affairs experience, to announce a week before Bush’s Convention, a Republicans for Kerry effort. I gather the idea is full page ads in Wall Street Journal, Barrons, NYTimes and WaPo and maybe others with lots of recognized signatures, and with the theme being the need for significant changes in approach to Foreign Policy. (My source is someone who knows about one of these retired Senators efforts to solicit signers.) The advertisement would then be reprintable, and available for easy distribution in places where such “names” would influence things.
So — as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon, we can call it the Ghost of Nixon/Conally play — for those who remember John Connally’s leadership of Democrats for Nixon — for which he was paid off by being made Sec. of Treasury in Nixon’s second term — but the dastardly act was done in the 1972 McGovern race.
The Senators involved are so senion, they will not be looking at appointments — and well fixed enough that Bush cannot do them in.
The post ends with the comment that getting people to the polls is crucial. Yes it is but persuading moderate Republicans and independents is also crucal and possible. Many moderate REpublicans are open to the idea of not voting or voting for Kerry if apraoched politely one o one. There is a lot of dissatisfaction about Bush’s extremist religion, budgt deficets, and misiformation about the war.
The Kerry campaign needs to set up a means for us to write personal letters to undecideds. And we all need to talk to our Republican friends about how party loyalty might mean getting rid of a leader who is leading the party the wrong way.
This is what I postulated on the bounce threads before, that it didn’t really increase Kerry’s support so much as deepen it.
> I can’t wait to hear the spin from the White
> House and Treasury Security John Snow-job on
> these numbers. 32,000 new jobs in July is an
> absolute shocker and will change the dynamics
> of the race in terms of how many Americans will
> view the economy. The consensus number
> predicted from July from a cross section of
> economists prior to the report’s issuance was
> 243,000 new jobs. To top it all off, the already
> bad June numbers were downgraded from
> 112,000 new jobs to 78,000.
From WaPo:
‘We’re not satisfied,” Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Pittsburgh. “We’re encouraged, though, by the fact that the unemployment rate came down.” ‘
So the “unemployment rate came down?” Let’s see what Karl Rove can make of that line, in the Chimp’s TV commercials.
—
I’m sitting here in Finland, thinking this is sweet on so many levels. 11 more weeks, and unless Kerry turns out to be absolutely abmysmally bad in the TV debates or Al Qaeda does “Shrub” a big favor, we are going to see America resume its leadership of the free Western world again. After four long years of Bushit.
Can’t wait.
MARCU$
On the basis of your analysis, Ruy, as well as my own gut feeling, I just left a message for my county Democratic Chair volunteering to help with our local GOTV efforts. This is something we need to start talking up among the party faithful.
I can’t wait to hear the spin from the White House and Treasury Security John Snow-job on these numbers. 32,000 new jobs in July is an absolute shocker and will change the dynamics of the race in terms of how many Americans will view the economy. The consensus number predicted from July from a cross section of economists prior to the report’s issuance was 243,000 new jobs. To top it all off, the already bad June numbers were downgraded from 112,000 new jobs to 78,000.
This is Bush’s worst nightmare. The economy needs to create 150-200,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with population growth.
Yup, we’ve certainly turned the corner with the economy. Bush has taken us down a blind alley. I’m seriously looking forward to observing how the Bush Admin will spin its “Stay The Course” economic message after two straight months of these horrible job numbers.
More goo- ,er, I mean *bad* news for “Shrub”:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/jobless_july/index.htm?cnn=yes
Job growth shock
July payroll growth far shy of Wall Street forecasts; unemployment rate slips to 5.5%.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations.