Slate: Mayor Pete's Big Announcement About Black Support Cited People Who Aren't Black and don't

[Jose Garcia]

Slate: Mayor Pete’s Big Announcement About Black Support Cited People Who Aren’t Black and Don’t Support Him


On Oct. 25, Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign released the following:

?width=780&height=520▭=440x293&offset=0x0

The link goes to an article in the HBCU Times—HBCU stands for historically black colleges and universities—which is credited to the three prominent black South Carolina figures above “and more than 400 Douglass Plan endorsers.” The article praises the Douglass Plan’s proposed spending programs and legal reforms, arguing that “there is one presidential candidate who has proven to have intentional policies designed to make a difference in the Black experience, and that’s Pete Buttigieg.”

The political usefulness of such a document is obvious for Buttigieg, who is polling very poorly with black voters both nationally and in South Carolina, which holds the fourth Democratic primary/caucus and has a majority-black Democratic electorate.

A problem: When the Intercept dug into the endorsement, it found that two of the three top-line black politicians listed say they never endorsed the Douglass Plan, and that at least 40 percent of the other 400 individuals whose names are listed are white.

More: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/mayor-pete-black-support-announcement.amp?__twitter_impression=true

[SterlingPound]

1. SO KIND OF LIKE BLACK SUPPORT OF THE 1996 CRIME BILL?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. Boom!

[Sloumeau]

9. I think you mean the 1994 Crime Bill, which many African Americans did support.

Black leaders were split about the 1994 Crime Bill.

Check out the following articles:

Why many black politicians backed the 1994 crime bill ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7tNe_4fHlAhUhGDQIHaHpC8wQFjABegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2016%2F02%2Fwhy-many-black-politicians-backed-the-1994-crime-bill-championed-by-the-clintons.html&usg=AOvVaw0yARkDTXybJ7FXKbQo42VV

Analysis: Black Leaders Supported Clinton's Crime Bill
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7tNe_4fHlAhUhGDQIHaHpC8wQFjACegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Fnbcblk%2Fanalysis-black-leaders-supported-clinton-s-crime-bill-n552961&usg=AOvVaw2LTIpPVE_7XqoMmuVjnSgY

Some Blacks Did Support Bill Clinton's Crime Bill. Here's Why ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7tNe_4fHlAhUhGDQIHaHpC8wQFjADegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fcodeswitch%2F2016%2F04%2F09%2F473648819%2Fsome-blacks-did-support-bill-clintons-crime-bill-heres-why&usg=AOvVaw22z2EhUufseyt5LZLEtEbH

The articles above offer different viewpoints about who was responsible for the 1994 Crime Bill, who supported it, and what the public thought of it. However, in 1994, crime was the number one issue among voters, and violent crime had risen dramatically across America. Americans were demanding that something done about it, and the polsters told the Democrats that their polls on the subject seemed to indicate that Americans wanted the Democrats to "get tough on crime". Democrats passed the '94 Crime Bill along with Republicans in September 1994. Around the same time, Congressional Republicans produced the "Contract With America", which included the promise of getting tough on crime. Shortly after the Crime Bill passed Congress, Americans all across the country voted in Republicans who supported the ideas included in the 1994 crime bill. The majority of Americans had said loud and clear what they wanted--get tough on crime. Now, we are supposed to blame the politicians for doing what the American public so clearly thought that they wanted. The following article shows how dramatically crime was rising before the 1994 Crime Bill and how dramatically it has fallen since the Crime Bill was put in place:

Fact check: Was the 1994 crime bill a primary driver of mass incarceration of African American men?
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Was_the_1994_crime_bill_a_primary_driver_of_mass_incarceration_of_African_American_men

The public was demanding that something be done, and they voted in a bunch of Republicans that promised to pursue a tough on crime policy. It's fine to blame the politicians when they do not listen to the people, but when they do listen to the people, the politicians may not be the only ones to blame. As far as the incarceration rates in prison, an awful lot of that was driven by the so called "War on Drugs" declared by Reagan in the 1980s, long before the 1994 Crime Bill. By allocating resources specifically to go after drug offenders, the majority of whom were just drug users and not drug pushers, prison populations across the country swelled to the point where eventually about 70% of the prison population were in prison because of drug charges, and most of them were just guilty of simple possession. Also, disproportionate sentencing against African Americans created in the 1980s, when people received much stiffer sentences for crack cocaine than regular cocaine, flooded prisons with Black men, because Black men were the main users of crack due to its cheaper price. It was the over emphasis on arresting people for simple possession, combined with the disproportionate sentencing for things like crack, combined with the 1994 Crime Bill that created a perfect storm of long term sentencing for Black Men.

The 1994 Crime Bill was primarily designed to try and keep violent criminals off the street. It was the combination of the drug laws of the 1980s along with the 1994 Crime Bill that together created a big problem for Black men and their families. After 1994, as states started to decriminalize simple possession in a desperate attempt to unclog their prisons, thus undoing the Reagan Era drug laws, the multiplier effects of the 1994 Crime Bill began to subside. What America always needed to do was be tough of violent crime and, instead of pushing incarceration, encourage treatment for drug users. Instead, the 1980s drug laws, combined with the 1994 Crime Bill ended up pushing criminal justice in the completely wrong direction--that of locking up tons of people who were simply convicted of drug possession for very long periods of time. However, few politicians or the voters who voted them in, realized the damage that the perfect storm of 80s drug laws combined with the 1994 Crime Bill would cause back in 1994.

Reagan's "Get Tough On Drugs" ideas of the 1980s essentially recreated the crime gangs of the 1920s during prohibition. However, this time it was not just about alcohol, and it was not just limited to the U.S. Instead, it ended up creating large and incredibly well funded international gangs that had the tons of money to buy guns and kill lots of people. Ironically, just as people had learned when Prohibition ended, the best way for politicians to reduce the epidemic of violent crime caused by tough drug laws would have been to relax those same drug laws, since their creation pushed up the price of drugs and made drug gangs both richer and more violent. Since Republicans in 1994 would never do that, because it would have meant that Republicans had been wrong all along, they instead pushed the 1994 Crime Bill to go after violent offenders while still leaving the absurd anti drug laws in place. The drug laws fueled both massive arrests and lots of gang crime, and the '94 Crime Bill made sure that those arrested would stay in jail for a long long time.

In hindsight, it is easy to see what a mess was created by the combination of anti drug laws and the '94 Crime Bill, just as, in hindsight, it is easy to see what a mess Prohibition created. In 1920, people thought that Prohibition would save America from the ravages of alcoholism, but anti alcohol laws just ended up making things worse. The 1980s were long enough away from the 1920s for people to have forgotten how much damage bad drug policy can do. Fortunately for the people living in the 1930s, after Franklin Roosevelt was elected, he simply repealed Prohibition and the alcohol gangs disappeared. If the Democrats had been better students of history, maybe they could have offered an alternative to the crime created by Reagan's anti drug laws. However, in 1988, George H.W. Bush won the Presidency against Michael Dukakis, and part of the way that he did that was by showing Dukakis to be "soft on crime". This is one of the main reasons that so many Democrats voted for the Crime Bill, and also one of the reasons that Bill Clinton got the Democratic Nomination in 1992. He was tough on crime, and Democrats did not want another loss like what happened with Dukakis.

[SterlingPound]

10. Selective memory i think that is called

There’s no question that by the early 1990s, blacks wanted an immediate response to the crime, violence and drug markets in their communities. But even at the time, many were asking for something different from the crime bill. Calls for tough sentencing and police protection were paired with calls for full employment, quality education and drug treatment, and criticism of police brutality.

It’s not just that those demands were ignored completely. It’s that some elements were elevated and others were diminished — what we call selective hearing. Policy makers pointed to black support for greater punishment and surveillance, without recognizing accompanying demands to redirect power and economic resources to low-income minority communities. When blacks ask for better policing, legislators tend to hear more instead.

Selective hearing has a deep history. In the Progressive Era, W.E.B. DuBois and Ida B. Wells called for state authorities to offer blacks the same social investment that reformers used to manage crime in white immigrant communities. But while whites received rehabilitation and welfare programs, black citizens found themselves overpunished and underprotected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/did-blacks-really-endorse-the-1994-crime-bill.html

[Cha]

11. NO.. It's Called REALITY.

[SterlingPound]

13. It's not reality if you hide from the facts

and selective history hides the facts

[Cha]

14. No one is" hiding".. those are your accusations.

[dsc]

19. Like the fact it was passed in 1996

Or the fact blacks universally opposed ot. Both of those are alternative facts

[SterlingPound]

20. yea i made the mistake of saying it was 1996 but grow jup

Flash forward to the Clinton era. As soon as Chuck Schumer, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and others introduced their bipartisan crime bill in September of 1993, groups representing black communities pushed back. The N.A.A.C.P. called it a “crime against the American people.”

While supporting the idea of addressing crime, members of the Congressional Black Caucus criticized the bill itself and introduced an alternative bill that included investments in prevention and alternatives to incarceration, devoted $2 billion more to drug treatment and $3 billion more to early intervention programs. The caucus also put forward the Racial Justice Act, which would have made it possible to use statistical evidence of racial bias to challenge death sentences.

Given the history of selective hearing, what followed was no surprise. Black support for anti-crime legislation was highlighted, while black criticism of the specific legislation was tuned out. The caucus threatened to stall the bill, but lawmakers scrapped the Racial Justice Act when Republicans promised to filibuster any legislation that adopted its measures.

[Thekaspervote]

2. Curious

[evertonfc]

3. Let's get real

Pete isn't going to be the nominee. Ok. He doesn't have nor will he muster support of the base of our party. Our nominee will be Biden, Warren or Sanders. Most likely Biden due to his unrelenting support from minorities.

[nycbos]

4. As I said.

Mayor Pete is like a MLB team's top minor league prospect. He has a lot of potential but is not quite ready for the the show.

[left-of-center2012]

5. Those who fear Mayor Pete will find their reasons

Just saying

[Cha]

12. say it all you want.. Nobody "fears" Mayor Pete.

[loyalsister]

6. He's reaching

and that's a shame. He still has a lot to learn about building genuine relationships. This gives me a really icky feeling because it comes across as exploitative and only about self interest.

[pfeiffer]

8. Of course...

...I'm all about JOE! For sure! But I do sincerely like Pete. BUT...this gives me a not-so-nice distrusting feeling.

[Sapient Donkey]

15. Has this been explained by the campaign at all?

I looked around and couldn't find any sort of explanation. I am curious what they have to say, because this is pretty weird if accurate.

[AngelicaHora]

17. There's a statement in the article

"Our campaign is working to build a multi-racial coalition, and we sought and received input from numerous Black policy experts and advisers to create a comprehensive plan to dismantle systemic racism: the Douglass Plan. We asked a number of Black South Carolinians, as well as South Carolinians from many backgrounds, to support the Douglass Plan, and we are proud and grateful that hundreds agreed to do so.

In the HBCU Times op-ed and in communications with the press, we’ve been clear that not every supporter of the plan is Black, and have never claimed otherwise in any public communication. We never gave the impression publicly that these people were endorsing Pete, only that they supported the plan. After they indicated their support, we reached out to people multiple times giving them the opportunity to review the language of the op-ed and the option to opt-out. We did hear from people who weren’t comfortable being listed and we removed them.

Pete will continue to talk about the Douglass Plan wherever he goes, regardless of the audience, as there are many communities of Americans committed to eradicating racial inequity."

[Sapient Donkey]

18. Ahh at the end of it.

I didn't get the impression they were saying the list was only comprised of African Americans. So I thought that was a bit of a contrived grievance. However, there does appear to be some who are saying they didn't even endorse the plan. I am curious if those people have responded to this response about them receiving a request to review it and opt-out.

While my instinct is that this is just a typical hit piece from The Intercept, it's hard to ignore this language from the article by HBCU Times ins't trying make it sound like everyone listed supports the plan. The last part in the following quote could perhaps be construed as promoting his presidency. It's a bit of a leap, but I can see how someone who may be a hard core Sanders supporter may feel those are loaded words.

There is one presidential candidate who has proven to have intentional policies designed to make a difference in the Black experience, and that’s Pete Buttigieg. We are over 400 South Carolinians, including business owners, pastors, community leaders, and students. Together, we endorse his Douglass Plan for Black America, the most comprehensive roadmap for tackling systemic racism offered by a 2020 presidential candidate

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. This is disqualifying.