I thought finally — probably because of the desire to oust Andrew Cuomo — there is a demand that Democrats denounce Bill Clinton for his mistreatment of women in the workplace.
But no. The column (by Charles Blow) isn't about that at all. It's not even mentioned. Blow's focus is on "Black and brown Americans and the poor":
Two major pieces of Clinton-signed legislation stand out: The crime bill of 1994 and the welfare reform bill of 1996.
I view the crime bill as disastrous. It flooded the streets with police officers and contributed to the rise of mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts Black men and their families. It helped to drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons.... Part of the goal of the bill was to blunt Republican criticisms that Democrats were soft on crime....
Then there was the welfare reform bill, which Clinton promised would “end welfare as we know it.”...
Nothing against Blow for highlighting these issues. I just wanted to record my reaction to the headline to underscore, once again, that the gender politics of the Democrats has been incoherent for a quarter of a century, and I have been forced to disapprove of them the entire time.
And by the way, Bill Clinton is the first presidential candidate I voted for who actually won. I was 41 years old, so I waited a long time.
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Clinton and Blow in the same sentence. I just don't know.
meanwhile... woke kkkancel kkkulture Rolf's damn another racist, and roll out the electric chair.
I view the crime bill as disastrous. It flooded the streets with police officers and contributed to the rise of mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts Black men and their families. It helped to drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons.... Part of the goal of the bill was to blunt Republican criticisms that Democrats were soft on crime....
Which senator drafted the 1994 crime bill?
No mention of which senator was the driving force behind the crime bill?
I disliked the bill due to three strikes, but Blows criticism ignores that crime dropped and the bill contributed to that drop.
So Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Professor? Gosh, you sure can pick 'em.
So who did AA vote for in 1976?
I thought Crack was exaggerating!
Actually, I and a lot of other people I know didn't vote for either Clinton, and have realized the incoherence of D (and R) party policies for a long time.
But in this country D and R are the only acceptable clubs.
Narr
Nary a mention of TWA-800
So who did AA vote for in 1976?
Eugene McCarthy, I bet.
That's my question, too Ken - you didn't go with Gus Hall in '76, did you Althouse?
I confess to voting for the peanut farmer. I was young and had just acquired a Master's degree, which practically guaranteed that I would also be dumb.
The Crime Bill gave us peace in cities like New York but Biden will show us what cities are like without police.
Biden (not Biden but the people running him) will also show us how to destroy the public regard for the military. It has already begun with the attacks on Tucker Carlson which will backfire disastrously.
My first presidential vote was for McGovern, btw. I even worked for him in the primary.
"It helped to drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons."
A bill drained communities?
So, once the bill was passed, the people in those communities kept doing things that the bill said were going to get them punished?
I always thought it was "repent of" and "atone for".
Clinton was also my first winning presidential vote (first time but not second time). Last Democrat I ever voted for.
"I view the crime bill as disastrous."
That's why he rewarded it's author with the White House in 2020.
"Part of the goal of the bill was to blunt Republican criticisms that Democrats were soft on crime...."
When Bill Clinton was facing questions over his 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, he flew back to Arkansas just to kill Ricky Ray Rector, a self-lobotomized black guy no one wanted dead. The prison Chaplain resigned.
"Then there was the welfare reform bill, which Clinton promised would “end welfare as we know it.”..."
The problem with America are the morals of the underclass, don't you know?
Narr said...
"I thought Crack was exaggerating!"
You are going to find that comparing what I say, to unrelated sources, results in discovering I'm correct more often than not. Why you guys don't do that already - with everything - I don't know. You're facing people who, right now, couldn't credibly claim to hold the moral high ground for any amount of money in the world - against anyone aware of what they've done - but you guys are letting them just run over you.
It's the sexiphone (sic), right?
There's been a brew-ha-ha about attacks against Asians in recent days. No mention about how city councils (Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc.) have been defunding police nor how low-level crimes are no longer prosecuted (shop lifting, simple assault, drug possession, etc.) are no longer prosecuted. Nor how BLM/antifa get free passes for rioting and looting. It's all Donald Trump's fault, don't you know.
Michael K said...
"The Crime Bill gave us peace in cities like New York but Biden will show us what cities are like without police."
And destroyed all respect for the law in everyone else.
"Biden (not Biden but the people running him) will also show us how to destroy the public regard for the military. It has already begun with the attacks on Tucker Carlson which will backfire disastrously."
You guys are only interested in whatever the last thing the media spoon feeds you as a concern. You have no actual minds of your own. What will Tucker tell you to be concerned about tomorrow? It's been woke blacks, pregnant military pilots, and what?
Good thing his white supremacist head writer is gone, huh?
Why don't the Dems just stop running and supporting men for political office? Since no man cursed with "the male gaze" will ever meet a feminist's standard, why bother all? One could argue that some men will still bother with the Dems because they hope they will get laid, but they will be gays or eunuchs at best. Real man can recruit wives and girlfriends from the steady and constant influx of young women from south of the border. Hell, John Wayne did exactly that.
Gerald Ford??
And by the way, Bill Clinton is the first presidential candidate I voted for who actually won.
Who did you vote for in 1976?
Great minds...
In '76 I had just moved to Alaska and I had dutifully registered to vote. Then I got a California absentee ballot in the mail. Helpful Mom, afraid I wouldn't vote, had forged my signature and forwarded the ballot. I was worried that somehow I would get in trouble for voting in two places, so I didn't vote at all. I would have voted for Carter.
In '80 I lived in Kodiak, five time zones away from DC. By the time I got off work Carter had already conceded. I intended to vote for him, but I voted for the libertarian instead.
Thank God I never voted for Carter.
The first winner I ever voted for was W. I supported him through two terms, never realizing what a loser this winner was.
You have nothing against what Blow is saying?
You should check out what being pro-criminal is doing to California and, especially, what Los Angeles County's DA George Gascon is doing.
chickelit said...
Why don't the Dems just stop running and supporting men for political office?
It is not the Democrat's job to dismantle their party - you guys are sup[posed to have *some* interest in it. Instead, you're letting all their main players go to argue over "woke" shit - that they all support with money and corporate influence.
It's the stupidest political strategy I've ever seen in my life. Except it's the stupid party doing it.
As above stated by many:
You hated the crime bill so much, you completely gave up (stop laughing) your journalistic standards to get its author elected.
Sure Charles.
As for welfare reform, the problem isn't underclass morality, it's incentives.
But hey, since Charles' favorite person is going to open the borders to jack up unemployment and cut wages among the underclass, they should probably get some welfare to offset it.
It is not the Democrat's job to dismantle their party
Maybe not but they are doing a fine job of it. Why interfere?
In 1990 2,605 NYer's were murdered. Most of the victims were blacks thugs killed by other black thugs, with enough innocent victims (also mostly black) thrown in to concern the general public. The crime bill helped make the streets safe again. Communities all across NYC and the country flourished as a result. The majority of the young men sent to prison may have been sperm donors but they were never fathers. I will concede some who were caught up in the more severe penalties were unfairly hurt, however, let us not pretend the overall results were not positive.The poorest communities benefitted the most. Tweaking the policy to remove some of the bad results would have been smart, instead Dems went with defund the police. Repenting success - how very left of the Dems.
“ I just wanted to record my reaction to the headline to underscore, once again, that the gender politics of the Democrats has been incoherent for a quarter of a century, and I have been forced to disapprove of them the entire time. And by the way, Bill Clinton is the first presidential candidate I voted for who actually won. I was 41 years old, so I waited a long time. ”
It isn’t incoherent.
It is easily understood.
You just want to vote for Democrats without taking responsibility for what that means.
You like being lied to.
Just admit it and the world will make more sense.
How is it that enforcing laws against hard drug distribution and murder "drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons" but allowing the exploding murder rates (mostly of Blacks by other Blacks) in every American big city since George Floyd does not? There seems to be some subtle understanding on the part of BLM and Crack which Black lives matter and which don't.
The "Repent" made me think of a New Yorker cartoon.
What will Tucker tell you to be concerned about tomorrow? It's been woke blacks, pregnant military pilots, and what?
"Woke Blacks ?"
You are crazy.
chickelit said...
It is not the Democrat's job to dismantle their party
Maybe not but they are doing a fine job of it. Why interfere?
I agree, but not because of anything you guys are doing. Trump was a fluke. He saved your asses and you're nothing without him.
Come on. Get a grip. The current BLM anti-police thing amongst the black thug set has very little to do with racism and everything to do with Soros-paid-for chaos, Round 2, which was planned for years. Round 1 was the Occupy [fill in the city] movement 10 years ago. Remember that one? Oh how quickly the rubes and philistines forget. They're counting on it. It's Marx's proletariat revolution, didn't you know?
Althouse, your blog comments section has been hijacked by a psychotic black racist thug.
Crack wrote: I agree, but not because of anything you guys are doing. Trump was a fluke. He saved your asses and you're nothing without him.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
~Harry Truman.
Shouting Karen
Let’s see...McCain, Romney, Johnson, Trump. Yep, I’ve never thought about it before, but I’m 0 for 4. I’m only 34 though. Of course, if it’s true that the democrats plan on rigging every election from here on out, then I might never vote for a winning candidate in my lifetime.
Democrats repent, eh? I suggest a good Act of Contrition and three Hail Marys.
"Then there was the welfare reform bill, which Clinton promised would “end welfare as we know it.”..."
And which helped a lot of poor "people of color" get out of poverty.
The horror!
What a shock, twisted, person Blow is
It's so comforting to be back to the boring normalcy of having twice as many troops surrounding the Capitol against American citizens as we have in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. BTW, under Trump we had the first year since 9/11 that no American soldier was killed in Afghanistan. A lot of unprecedented goods were achieved in just one term. Being boring was not one of them. Inexcusable!
the gender politics of the Democrats has been incoherent for a quarter of a century
"We don't care, unless it benefits us" maybe be evil, but it's not incoherent.
Only black people are on welfare? Only black people go to prison?
I did not know that.
@Ken B:
No mention of which senator was the driving force behind the crime bill?
I disliked the bill due to three strikes, but Blows criticism ignores that crime dropped and the bill contributed to that drop.
I think there is a lot of mythology about the 1994 crime bill on both sides. It likely did not substantially contribute to either the decline in crime or the increase of mass incarceration. The rise in the prison population started in the early 1970s and was increasing by double-digit percentages in the 1980s. States were already adopting harsher penalties and mandatory minimums, and most criminal prosecution and incarceration occurs at the state level. The decline in crime rates started in the early 90s, and not only was it observed in North America but also Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
The reason for the crime drop remains one of the most debated topics in criminology. A lot of potential explanations have been proposed, from the availability of abortion to the waning of the crack epidemic to the reduction in lead exposure to the increasing age of the population to the prison boom to technological changes.
I’ve only voted for major party candidates, so you can easily figure out who I voted for. Ford in 1976 and then Carter 4 years later, when he lost.
The murder rate for young black men dropped during this time. An argument could be made that this was due to imprisoning other you black men. Is this a worthwhile trade?
I would contend that the crime bill disproportionately affected black men in the habit of breaking the law. If you do not like the law, then change the law, but do not cry to me about people breaking the law going to prison. I will agree that the federal agencies are out of control, but the local guys around here have built up a great deal of trust with the public, and I like it that way.
I am fascinated by this sentence: It helped to drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons
Does Mr. Blow seriously intend that the Black communities would have been better off had these people not been incarcerated? Don't those folks deserve safer communities, too?
"Woke Blacks ?"
You are crazy.
Progressives. Conservatives, and libertarians, on principle, do not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity dogma.
The Crime Bill was followed by a significant reduction in crime. No wonder Democrats regret it.
Reductions in crime were largely fueled by changes in state sentencing practices in the late 70s and 80s. The federal crime bill increased state law enforcement resources, but federal prosecutions and incarcerations were and are an insignificant part of the whole.
It can be argued that increased incarceration did not account for reductions in crime, but not statistically or logically.
The Crime Bill was followed by a significant reduction in crime. No wonder Democrats regret it.
Excess lives. It's a Pro-Choice thing. There wasn't always such a uniform consensus. At one time, it was normally distributed. Change.
that the gender politics of the Democrats has been incoherent for a quarter of a century, and I have been forced to disapprove of them the entire time
The male theory is that you can't make a woman happy. This seems to tie in.
Does Mr. Blow seriously intend that the Black communities would have been better off had these people not been incarcerated? Don't those folks deserve safer communities, too?
Not to mention the fact that many of these "fathers" were MIA anyway as far as their offspring were concerned. The late great Walter Williams noted in 2014: "The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites.... The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent."
Nor can numbers of that magnitude be explained by blacks being imprisoned. In any case, the trends began in the 1960s, thanks to the "War on Poverty."
I’ve only voted for major party candidates, so you can easily figure out who I voted for. Ford in 1976 and then Carter 4 years later, when he lost.
You voted for Ford after he pardoned Nixon, and then voted for Carter after his disastrous first term?
You know what actually is exhausting? Re-explaining what the numbers on black incarceration (or school discipline, or test scores) really mean every time the issue comes up. If they have ten times the violent crime rate but six times the arrest and conviction rate, that's not being unfairly targeted.
Do they get worse public defenders and therefore harsher treatment once they are in the system? Sure. But those effects are downstream of the actual crime rate. Also, do the noncriminal inhabitants of those neighborhoods have unfairly bad lives, because it is dangerous to testify and dangerous to bring up kids. Absolutely. But that's not a result of the legislation Blow is talking about.
@hombre:
It can be argued that increased incarceration did not account for reductions in crime, but not statistically or logically.
There actually isn't a very direct relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates. At times they are negatively correlated and at other times positively correlated. Many states over the last 20 years or so have seen declines in incarceration while crime rates have continued to fall. Also, crime rates followed a similar pattern of decline in Canada, the UK, and Australia despite these countries all having lower rates of incarceration.
There actually isn't a very direct relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates.
I think it was "Freakonomics" that attributed the decline in crime to abortion.
Welfare reform reduced welfare dependence -- and child poverty. Some of the welfare poor became working poor, which is not great but better.
J. Farmer said...
There actually isn't a very direct relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates. At times they are negatively correlated and at other times positively correlated. Many states over the last 20 years or so have seen declines in incarceration while crime rates have continued to fall. Also, crime rates followed a similar pattern of decline in Canada, the UK, and Australia despite these countries all having lower rates of incarceration.
And there is a very high correlation to incarceration rates and infrastructure value of a country.
Bill Clinton is the only presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for who actually won. But then, I usually vote 3rd party.
@Michael K:
I think it was "Freakonomics" that attributed the decline in crime to abortion.
Correct. By Steven Levitt. The argument had been around for a while, but Levitt brought renewed attention to it and kicked off a controversy. William Bennett got into trouble for making his comment about aborting black babies as a crime reduction strategy. Of course, Bennett was arguing against abortion. Anyone that understands the moral argument would understand why the pro-life movement wouldn't be swayed by the abortion-as-crime-reducer argument.
Steve Sailer actually debated Levitt in Slate way back in 1999 on the issue of abortion and crime reduction. You can read it here if you are interested.
>>And by the way, Bill Clinton is the first presidential candidate I voted for who actually won. I was 41 years old, so I waited a long time.
Amazing how much has become a blur. In retrospect, I might have made different choices.
I know I blanked my first election ('72; also Althouse's first?) in Illinois because Nixon and McGovern both turned my stomach.
Have been voting in Mass. since then, so it's all been theater.
Went for Ford in '76 and John Anderson (Illinois boy!) in '80 (and I even remember why; proposal to impose a 50 cent import tax on oil).
Probably blanked again in '84.
In '88, hey, the Duke was a neighbor! I even saw him a couple of times around the hood!
Between '92 and 2012, I'm doubtful I voted for either of the major candidates but honestly can't remember.
Went Libertarian in 2016 cuz, why not?
Trump in 2020, cuz why not?? Maybe my most affirmative vote, FWIW.
--gpm
Most of the Black uncles, sons, baby daddys etc. that Blow is whining about would have beat his ass for being gay.
@Gahrie:
You voted for Ford after he pardoned Nixon, and then voted for Carter after his disastrous first term?
It wouldn't be the last time Ann bucked the trend. If I'm not mistaken, she voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.
Mondale and Dukakis were the last nominees of the old New Deal coalition Democrats. Gary Hart was a proto New Democrat but became engulfed in a sex scandal. Clinton was the first of the New Democrats and was determined not to be labeled soft-on-crime or a tax-and-spend liberal. It was an attempt to win back some of the white working-class voters that Reagan had peeled away from the Democrats.
hombre said...
Reductions in crime were largely fueled by changes in state sentencing practices in the late 70s and 80s. The federal crime bill increased state law enforcement resources, but federal prosecutions and incarcerations were and are an insignificant part of the whole.
It can be argued that increased incarceration did not account for reductions in crime, but not statistically or logically.
-----------===============
increased incarceration =???>>> fewer repeat offenses for the duration!!
Q : wouldn't a simple analysis clarify - what is the story on repeat offense rates and increased/decreased crime rates
Speaking of "incoherent gender politics" has the Old Professor ever posted about Trump's
various "grab em by the pussy" issues--- 2 ongoing lawsuits for sexual harassment and numerous claims of same.
i can't seem to find any posts on this by Ann. Hear no evil, speak no evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
The 1994 crime bill and welfare reform saved millions of lives. I watched single women, with lots of assistance and no reduction in benefits, only carrots, no sticks, train and enter the workforce all over Atlanta. Women who had only known welfare, inter-generationally, suddenly had self-respect. Employers partnered with us. I watched households gain order — schedules, mealtimes, bedtimes — things literally alien to their life experience prior to that. It improved lives enormously. No woman or child was deprived of any benefit, housing, or healthcare — all those support systems remained in place as the moms gradually learned to support themselves. Some 20% — druggies and maladjusted — refused to participate, and they didn’t lose benefits either. Some of the programs that supported them changed names, more were funneled into disability, which remains problematic, but there was no reduction in care, only a vast reduction in dependency as independence was rewarded. And when women saw they could earn more by working and get out of public housing, every one of those cases was a victory.
The crime bill was the best thing Biden ever did. Before then, serial rapists and murderers were strolling out of prison after three to five years, tops. Welfare reform was the best thing Clinton ever did. He and Gingrich spoke movingly, together, about how having absent fathers and screwy mothers had damaged their childhoods, how they benefitted from good stepdads, how they understood the harm done by government dependency. I was a Blue Dog Democrat then, and I was flabbergasted by the amount of hatred and rage was directed at Biden and Clinton by the Party leftist and Marxists. Of course, they all lived in very nice houses in the very nice parts of the city. You have to be pretty rich to be a Lefty and basically a trust fund baby to be a Marxist, was my takeaway.
What we learned about crime through the federal and simultaneous similar state efforts, coinciding with technology improvements in DNA, was that a small number of prolific criminals were responsible for staggering amounts of crime — and were surprisingly ecumenical in the types of crimes they committed. Remove the prolific recidivists — most of whom were counseled to plead down to drug offenses, so we later tweaked that to better reflect their records — and you remove a heck of a lot of crime.
Heather MacDonald has debunked most of the nonsense theories about criminal reform.
Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to sign the Welfare Bill, after blocking several previous attempts to reform failing government handout programs. That he claimed credit for it when finally forced into signing it was of course natural for that slithy tove.
Northerners thought Carter was weird, so many who didn't like Nixon did vote for Ford. But Clinton was also pretty weird to us. Why him? I guess it must have been the economy. But why not Perot? Too, too, too weird? And why not Anderson in 1980? Why not Reagan, for that matter?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा