Here, I am just going to have to go with the old mainstay, “No shit, Sherlock.”
President Bill Clinton on Wednesday conceded that over-incarceration in the United States stems in part from policies passed under his administration.
Clinton signed into law an omnibus crime bill in 1994 that included the federal “three strikes” provision, mandating life sentences for criminals convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes. On Wednesday, Clinton acknowledged that policy’s role in over-incarceration in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.
“The problem is the way it was written and implemented is we cast too wide a net and we had too many people in prison,” Clinton said Wednesday. “And we wound up…putting so many people in prison that there wasn’t enough money left to educate them, train them for new jobs and increase the chances when they came out so they could live productive lives.”
There is a very good reason that progressives tend not to remember the Clinton presidency fondly, and this is one of them. To be sure, there were many fine and well-intentioned things in the Crime Bill of 1994, including the ill-fated Assault Weapons ban. The overwhelming impact of the law, however, was punitive and cruel, and it led quite predictably to prison overcrowding. It also effectively eliminated any kind of college-level education for inmates who couldn’t afford it, introduced mandatory drug testing, and created 60 new death penalty offenses.
And this was enacted overwhelmingly before the Gingrich Revolution came that November.
If the Democrats hoped to prove that they were tough on crime, the electorate didn’t seem impressed.
I’m sure Poppy and Shrub would apologize for all the things they did during their administrations that the GOP base doesn’t now like. Except nobody can find such a list.
OTOH, the Clinton lists are long but oddly seem not well known among Democratic voters who also tell those that dare to mention items on the lists to shut up. Should either Clinton offer a “if I knew then what I know now” or a half-hearted apology, the denialists then tell us to praise the apology as if a second Clinton presidency will fix all those “misguided” errors of the first one. Except for DOMA and DADT that Obama fixed.
So are you saying we should hold Secty. Clinton responsible for the sins of her husband?
They are not the same person, I don’t like a lot of her policies and I’m hoping for a better alternative when the primaries start but I’m not going to hold her responsible for that stuff unless she embraces some of that stuff during her campaign or recent speeches.
It was a “twofer.” Promised and delivered by them. How much was Bill and how much was Hillary on each issue is mostly directly undisclosed with the exception of DOMA which Hillary pushed Bill to go along with. But we do have her time in the driver’s seat when she was in the Senate and as SOS. Not much daylight between when it was her signature and when it was Bill’s.
I think it’s totally astonishing that Clinton acknowledged he did anything wrong, honestly. Revolutionary. The world turned upside down. No snark, even Jimmy Carter is unable to admit any mistakes he made as president.
Americans have the memories of goldfish, so the reaction to apologizing for a long-settled and long-forgotten issue isn’t ‘how big of them to admit to a fault that no one noticed but affects things today’ but ‘WTF?? I was living in bliss until you told me that! I will punish you for messing up now that I am aware of it!’
So I don’t blame politicians for apologizing for things that are more than 2 years old and are not on the forefront of public consciousness. Joe Sixpack has generally been shown to be undeserving that level of contrition and thoughtfulness.
Political expediency for brand Clinton to occupy the WH again. And what took him so long? He’s been out of office for over fourteen years.
To the best of my knowledge, history has recorded Carter’s innumerable mistakes and just because he doesn’t admit them, doesn’t make them any less wrong.
No, seriously. Steve M references a new book out of the Brennan Center at NYU, “Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice” (you can read it online) where a lot of presidential candidates among others state their emphases, and it’s really noteworthy that Joe Biden doubles down on defending the 1994 Act, which he wrote, saying it was all about community policing that was later defunded (true, as far as it goes, but skipping over the obnoxious parts of the bill) and Martin O’Malley doubles down on his success in Baltimore, distracting us with focus on getting rid of the death penalty (a necessary change, but he’s skipping over his responsibility for abusive police culture). Only Bill Clinton offers any self-criticism. Sure it took a long time, but in the overwhelming majority of cases it never happens.
I’m always open to considering apologies. However, I never evaluate them in comparison with those that also have some culpability that haven’t apologized.
The “if I knew then what I know now” doesn’t cut it for me if what should have been known then wasn’t difficult. Hence, I’m not into mea culpas from those that voted for the IWR. If it was more difficult than the IWR to get it right then, I’ll listen. However, dummies knew at least a decade ago that the incarceration rate in the US had become a disaster. So, two decades on Clinton’s apology is way too little and way too late.
LBJ never apologized for his one (and it was a biggie) grave mistake. Not during the four plus years that he remained in office nor the next and last four years of his life. Hence, liberals continue to loathe him to this day. However, as I place far more weight on actions to correct a mistake than apologetic words which are difficult to evaluate for honesty, I’m more charitable towards LBJ. He did initiate the Paris Peace talks and in real time, he did hope that they would succeed in ending the war. Unfortunately, he chose that rat-bastard Kissinger to be on the team which was another LBJ mistake.
Perhaps if LBJ has remained healthy and lived for another couple of decades, he too would have apologized, but it wouldn’t have made the dead undead, the wounded whole, or restored the lands, farms, houses, etc. that US bombs and chemicals destroyed. Almost forty years on, McNamara could barely acknowledge what could and should have been known in 1964.
If the crime bill were but the only major Clinton “mistake,” admitting that error and the implication that a second Clinton POTUS would correct it would be worth listening to. But it’s not the only one and his other “mistakes” have had equally profound and negative consequences for most of us. And in the past fifteen years neither Clinton has DONE anything to correct any of them.
WRT O’Malley — for now he’s political dead meat. The “liberal” faction of the Democratic base that he was courting was fractured with the real time exposure of Baltimore policing. Doesn’t make him look all the much better than MO Gov. Nixon.
Biden has a long record of poor policy decisions. There are rational reasons why his presidential aspirations flopped — not even close enough to being good enough for the liberal base. A shame really because he does have more natural charisma than most politicians and has enough character quirks that often make him charming.
But to apologize, sincerely, one has to recognize the mistake. I don’t think Lyndon ever acknowledged privately that he took the wrong path in 64-5. He went to his grave, far as I know, thinking it wasn’t pretty but he was somehow forced to do what he did. His favorite advisor, he consistently said, was the pro war SoS Rusk, who also died never apologizing.
McNamara, as smart as LbJ but saner, a little more open therefore to healthy introspection and correction, was better equipped mentally to see more clearly on what a disaster VN had become, and apparently privately saw the errors of his ways in the 66-7 period. Dunno why he waited so long to come clean to the public. Ditto for the similarly situated Mac Bundy, even later to the game to apologize.
Stipulated that LBJ didn’t acknowledge and likely didn’t recognize his Vietnam mistake; so, don’t understand why you felt the need to add further to that.
McNamara didn’t come clean. It was much easier for him to walk away from the obvious Vietnam disaster than it was for LBJ. No skin off his nose for promulgating it and he had nothing to offer as to how to correct it. He was eight years younger than LBJ, didn’t have a bad ticker, and was granted almost three decades more live in which to introspect. And even after all that time and introspection, he still made excuses for his actions.
Authentic apologies for egregious acts only come into being when an individual experiences a profound personal transformation. That doesn’t happen when after that egregious act(s) one goes on to live a very nice and objectively successful life. Extraordinarily nice in McNamara’s case.
Cyrus Vance is the only one that was around and about three administrations that had any sense — not that two of them listened.
Didn’t catch in your post where you acknowledged LBJ failed to acknowledge the mistake, the first step in the apology process.
McN iirc issued a belated sorta apology., too little too late. But some critics were outraged about even his semi apology, as if he should have said nothing. He always maintained his role was to implement the policy of the man he served, a rather narrow technocratic and bloodless way of looking at public service for sure. That was what enabled him to go on serving Johnson one or two years after he’d supposedly concluded the policy would not work. I have very mixed feelings about both him and Bundy.
Dunno about Cy Vance and his views on that war. Did he tell Lyndon it was a big mistake? Even George Ball, an early opponent of escalation, went along with Lyndon thereafter, iirc.
How could this have been any clearer:
LBJ never apologized for his one (and it was a biggie) grave mistake. Not during the four plus years that he remained in office nor the next and last four years of his life. Hence, liberals continue to loathe him to this day.
Yes — Vance told LBJ to get out of Vietnam. LBJ refused to listen and Vance resigned in 1967. As SOS, he told Carter not to listen to Brzezinski on the USSR and Iran. But Carter chose Zbig; so, Vance resigned. Carter really did deserve to lose in 1980. Too bad that stuck this country with a conservative that was in the early stages of Alzheimers.
Talking passed each other on Riverboat. My point merely was that he never acknowledged the mistake on VN, let alone apologized for it. Did he ever acknowledge making any mistake elsewhere on any important policy decision? I doubt it. I’m fairly confident his memoirs — ghosted by Doris Kearns — were a slick whitewash of his five tumultuous years in office. Not exactly a modest man willing to acknowledge his shortcomings.
As for Vance, did not know that re his later VN stance. Good for him. Yes, I am aware of how he got nudged aside during Carter by the more hawkish Zbig. Maybe we would have been better off if Jerry had won in 76 …
Great point. The GOP seems to have elaborated on the presidential theme of not admitting mistakes: Since 2008 they not only have denied any of George W’s mistakes: They’re all but ingoring that his presidency even happened. It will be interesting to see if this tactic remains viable if the name Bush continues to sound throughout primary season.
But at least Bill gave us NAFTA and allowed media conglomeration and dismantled Yugoslavia.
In the early 90s and late 80s there really WAS a much bigger increase in violent crime over the historical norm as all the lead babies hit their prime. Something needed to be done.
However, whether the programs put in place were appropriate to deal with the increase in the population who were more aggressive and impulsive due to lead poisoning is still an entirely valid question. There really was a crime problem but whether Republiclinton policies were the best answer is almost surely a no.
Well, now we know that actually there wasn’t anything that really needed to be done, as the crime wave was from creating a car-oriented society with leaded gas. But at the time it was pretty crazy, with crime rates exceeding anything that had ever been recorded in this country* and it’s not surprising we did a lot of stupid stuff at the time. The propaganda was pretty effective too. I thought 3 strikes was a good idea for some time until I found out the third strike could be shoplifting or marijuana possession.
*Excluding slavery, Jim Crow, and assorted genocides of Native Americans. Which of course all totally dwarf the lead baby crime wave.
Also, it’s frustrating to read it, but mandatory drug testing actually results in an increase in minority hires compared to places where no drug testing is done. My guess is the facts of the drug test help combat internal bias.
do you? The only reason he’s bashing his own crime bill is so he can talk about how wrong mass arrests are to undercut O’Malley. I have no idea why the Clintons have been in such a defensive crouch since Hillary has launched her campaign but they are scared of something. Hillary has yet to do 1 interview with reporters or even answer 1 substantive question from a reporter. Her events are all pre-screened events with supporters only, speeches with no audience interaction or closed-door donor events. The DNC just released their debate schedule and it is for only 6 debates and candidates are not allowed to participate in non-sanctioned debates, which is exactly what Hillary wants.
I don’t know if something is wrong with her or they are afraid of something. She has an incredibly light schedule with most of her time taken up with high-dollar donor events.
It’s a pre-fail campaign. She doesn’t stand a chance. Too much baggage, target-rich, blue dress, cigar, bengazi, interns, etc.
and the Clinton Foundation, (re: which Carne Ross wants to hear more about Morocco’s donations)
https://twitter.com/carneross
Oh, he absolutely means it. People change and politics changes. I certainly have 20 year old mistakes I wish I could undo.
The DNC just released their debate schedule and it is for only 6 debates and candidates are not allowed to participate in non-sanctioned debates, which is exactly what Hillary wants.
Who runs the DNC now? DWS!! What do you think she wants? Also, they can’t like Bernie’s entry into the primary race. Have you seen Podesta’s answer about Hillary and TPP/Fast Track? She’s trying to ignore it. She thought she could just waltz through the primary and start in GE mode from day one. That’s not going to happen any more.
refuses to take on Clinton. Just talking about issues and ignoring her isn’t putting any pressure on Clinton. He’s going to have to run a real race and go after Hillary for dodging the media. Put enough pressure on her that she finally does an interview. Otherwise, he’s just a vanity campaign.
What does DWS (Clinton-friendly) want? She wants a vigorous but friendly primary campaign where Clinton gets to debate over how much to raise the minimum wage, how much to cut the carried interest deduction, and other issues with relatively friendly disagreements within the Dem party. This will move the Overton Window via having the discussions in the media, and allow Clinton to adjust her positions if necessary. This then would end fairly early with a resounding Clinton win and a magnanimous concession by her opponents.
Frankly, Bernie is almost the ideal opponent. He’s about as left as you can get in American politics and advocates his positions aggressively but he’s miles behind in the invisible primary, which makes it very hard for him to win. He’s also realistic, prefers positive campaigns and very opposed to letting the Republicans win. So, Hillary will get her vigorous debate, her easy win, and then the magnanimous concession. Likely heartfelt, too, because it’s looking like Hillary’s platform will be considerably leftward of what anybody was expecting.
So, Hillary will get her vigorous debate, her easy win, and then the magnanimous concession. Likely heartfelt, too, because it’s looking like Hillary’s platform will be considerably leftward of what anybody was expecting.
Easy Win? What would that constitute? Do you really think Bernie is in it to get 25% of the vote in New Hampshire, say? I don’t. He wouldn’t bother if that was the case. What is Hillary’s platform?
Whitewater
Do we REALLY want to spend 4 more years wallowing in the Clinton sty? Geezus, I sure do not.
I have NO interest in that amnesty crap of hers, either. That’s not a winner, despite the fact that it is Holy Writ that immigration issues are winners for Dems. They are not. It’s a huge delusion.
You’re going to have to sooner or later accept that the demographic tides have shifted and that the future of electoral victory is in mollifying the Asian and Latino contingent.
We can talk all day about the appropriateness of doing such* but at the end of the day there’s no future in mollifying via immigration whites outside of the white working class.
*My personal feelings is that the United States must find a way to drastically increase its population if it wants to stay a global superpower instead of a has-been like Russia or the UK, so appeals from (white) coastal engineers about ‘they took ur jaerbs’ fall on deaf ears. Why don’t you guys sacrifice for the good of the country for once like every other racial minority did instead of whining about being wage undercut?
For the record, I’m mostly kidding. It’s just that when when someone makes an immigration lifeboat ethics argument (it’s either the citizens or the immigrants, pick one) I find it irresistible for me to do the same (it’s either an economic circle-jerk death spiral like Japan or keeping the United States powerful, pick one). Helps keeps things in perspective.
How old are you, and in what industry do you work? For me to gauge your understanding of the situation, I’d appreciate an honest answer.
To be fair, I will tell you that I am 62, and work in applied statistics.
Forget it. I got enough of that ‘herpa derpa, I’ve been in the soup for X many years longer than you so I can oldsplain it to you’ crap in the military.
Fine. I’ll put you down as another dumb fuck who doesn’t know shit. Pretty much my impression.
Other than the assault weapons ban, how many of these “fine and well-intentioned things” can you name?
Didn’t the bill also add immediately add, by targeted hires, another 100,000 cops to police departments around the country?
and not to be forgotten.
According to the ACLU:
“As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits. Private prisons for adults were virtually non-existent until the early 1980s, but the number of prisoners in private prisons increased by approximately 1600% between 1990 and 2009.”
– https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration
and not to be forgotten.
According to the ACLU:
“As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits. Private prisons for adults were virtually non-existent until the early 1980s, but the number of prisoners in private prisons increased by approximately 1600% between 1990 and 2009.”
– https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration
And don’t forget: in addition to making it easier to get locked up, Bill Clinton made it harder to get unlocked with habeas corpus reform in 1996.
On a hunch rather than a memory, I googled Edward Kennedy 1994 Crime Bill and found just what I might have suspected, that there was a lot of him in it. Kennedy was a big advocate of mandatory minimums and worked with Strom Thurmond on the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act; it was our beloved Joe Biden, as Judiciary Committee chairman, who wrote the 1994 bill. but Kennedy was a major champion on the Democratic side. As with the No Child Left Behind Act (thumbs down) and the Affordable Care Act (thumbs up), he was an advocate of getting Republican support for funding things by combining it with punitive measures so the beneficiaries of the good parts didn’t get to enjoy it too much (in the case of ACA, by participating in the constant screwing down of provider payments to discourage providers). Clinton did not do this stuff by himself, and I think he has the right to second-guess it. Indeed, I think it’s really encouraging that he does, and really unprecedented.
Chris Cuomo – currently with CNN … previously was the ABC News chief law and justice correspondent, and co-anchor for ABC’s 20/20
Tweet wrt free speech:
Made Bobby Byrd roll over in his grave.
Lol he’s obviously wrong on the facts. But as I detailed in the other thread I think it’s harder to place the line (on the merits) than many readily accept. For example, I have no issue with Julius Streicher being put to death for crimes against humanity.
I could not disagree with you more.
We’re on our THIRD generation of Young Black Men as human fodder for the Prison Industrial Complex.
The roots of a lot of that IS from the Bill Clinton Administration.
So, yes, he should speak up about it.
But,the delusion that one speech is going to innoculate Hillary from a real discussion about Black folk and the Prison Industry, and justice in the legal system?
Hell no, muthaphucka.