There has been much talk in recent days about the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 — better known as Crime Bill — signed by then-President Bill Clinton. There has also been some chatter about the supportive remarks made publicly by Hillary Clinton at that time. The long-term effects of that bill on African-Americans has been well-documented, most notably by Michelle Alexander in her piece at The Nation: “Why Hillary Doesn’t Deserve The Black Vote.”
“When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”
Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized.”
A fundraiser was held for Mrs. Clinton last night, hosted by an attorney at his residence in Charleston, SC, with attendees paying $500 per person to hear her speak. As she was giving comments about police body cameras, criminal justice reform “and all the like,” a Black Lives Matter protester named Ashley Williams confronted her about her past statements and asked her to apologize to Black Americans for mass incarceration. “I am not a super-predator, Hillary Clinton.”
Clinton’s reaction to the woman was understandably dismissive, saying “Let’s get back to the issues” and “No one has ever asked me that before, dear.” The people in attendance were understandably… oh, bothered by the interruption. Listen as one woman says, “This is not appropriate...”
Alexander’s piece gives context to the quote on Williams’ banner.
”In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill, and Hillary says she supports criminal-justice reforms to undo some of the damage that was done by her husband’s administration. But on the campaign trail, she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue. So what exactly did the Clinton economy look like for black Americans? Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.”
Now, if you’ve read this far before jumping to the comments to say “BERNIE VOTED FOR THAT BILL YOU IDIOT,” congrats. I know that. We all know that. But as with everything Bernie, there was a reason for his vote, and it was good enough. Also as with everything Bernie, there was a damn good statement on the House floor about the bill before his vote.
"Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals four. In other words, there is a logical and rational process called cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as controversial as that statement may be.
A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields—it is likely that the crop will fail. A company neglects to invest in research and development—it is likely that the company will not be profitable.
In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its population—which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and it is the case in countries throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance."
Sanders voted against the 1991 bill. In 1994, however — "Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill. A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons.""
So now, I come to the issue of voting against one’s best interests. Yes, Hillary Clinton says she has ‘evolved’ her stance on criminal justice. And of course, she wants to distance herself from her past statements and positions on the issue. Just like with marriage equality. And just like with “immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline.” (source)
But on the issue of criminal justice, a familiar theme emerges. Her past statements and positions are diametrically-opposed to her current campaign promises.
She makes $150 million in speeches to financial corporations and then says that she will be the one to hold Wall Street accountable. She speaks out against mass incarceration while her campaign top bundlers are lobbyists for private prisons.
African-American support for Clinton is high. Everyone knows that. The question everyone should be asking is — why?