Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 12:44 PM Apr 2016

Michelle Alexander Just Responded to Bill Clinton

There!


Prominent law professor, author, and civil rights activist Michelle Alexander isn’t buying Bill Clinton’s “almost” apology for his reaction to protesters yesterday.

On Thursday, the former President of the United States was heckled by Black Lives Matter activists during a campaign rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The protesters were demonstrating against Clinton’s 1994 crime bill and his 1996 welfare cuts, which protesters said decimated the black community. Clinton responded by doubling down on his wife’s “superpredator” comments, telling the protesters they were defending murderers and drug dealers.

The next day, Clinton said he would “almost want to” apologize for his comments, stopping short of actually apologizing.

Ohio State University law professor Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, took the former president to task in a scathing Facebook post on Friday, starting off by thanking Clinton for revealing his true colors.

“Thank you, Bill, for giving the nation a ten-minute tutorial on everything that was wrong (and apparently remains wrong) with the ‘New Democrats’ and their approach to racial politics,” Alexander wrote.

She then went on to talk about how Clinton’s strategy to win the White House was based on a racist appeal to white independent voters by convincing them that he could take even more of a hardline approach to crime than his Republican predecessors — something Clinton and his surrogates in the media argue was supported by the black community.

It is a gross distortion to suggest that black people wanted billions of dollars slashed from child welfare, housing and other public benefits in order to fund an unprecedented prison building boom. It was Bill Clinton’s deliberate political strategy — one he championed along with the “New Democrats” — to appeal to white swing voters by being tougher on struggling black communities than the Republicans had been, ramping up the drug war and gutting welfare.

She continued to excoriate Bill Clinton for driving a wedge between the protesters and Clinton supporter U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) by saying, “You can listen to [the protesters], or you can listen to Congressman John Lewis, the last remaining hero of the civil rights movement.”

Alexander pointed out that Rep. Lewis himself was a fierce opponent of Clinton’s endeavor to “reform welfare as we know it.”

That strategy of “getting tough” while at the same time eviscerating the federal social safety net was NOT supported by many of the black politicians he seeks to use as cover. Rep. John Lewis (who Clinton referred to yesterday as the “last remaining hero of the civil rights movement”) fiercely opposed welfare reform, accurately predicting that it would thrust more than a million more kids into severe poverty.

John Lewis said back then: “How can any person of faith, of conscience, vote for a bill that puts a million more kids into poverty? What does it profit a great nation to conquer the world, only to lose its soul?”

Alexander and Lewis are right. As the Huffington Post recently reported, up to 1 million people will soon lose their access to food stamps as a result of Clinton’s 1996 welfare cuts. The law includes provisions that cut food stamps after a certain period of time for unemployed welfare recipients with no dependents.

At the bill’s signing ceremony, Clinton himself even admitted the bill “fails to provide Food Stamp support to childless adults who want to work, but cannot find a job or are not given the opportunity to participate in a work program.”

“These totally unnecessary cuts would increase demand on the nation’s charitable food system at a time when food banks and other hunger-relief groups are stretched to meet sustained high need,” Feeding America CEO Diana Aviv said in a public statement.

At the end of her post, Michelle Alexander congratulated the protesters for “fighting for the soul of the Democratic party and American democracy itself.”

http://usuncut.com/politics/michelle-alexander-clinton-blm-rant/

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
3. This is very straight forward. The Clintons have not been a friend of the AA community
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 01:09 PM
Apr 2016

as they themselves make clear.

As the Huffington Post recently reported, up to 1 million people will soon lose their access to food stamps as a result of Clinton’s 1996 welfare cuts. The law includes provisions that cut food stamps after a certain period of time for unemployed welfare recipients with no dependents.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
5. Deliberate strategy to appeal to white swing voters.
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 11:04 PM
Apr 2016

The most important line in her article. And this is precisely why I joined the Green Party when he was President. And precisely why I do not trust Hillary.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
6. "... a ten-minute tutorial on everything that was wrong (and apparently remains wrong) ..."
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:10 AM
Apr 2016
“Thank you, Bill, for giving the nation a ten-minute tutorial on everything that was wrong (and apparently remains wrong) with the ‘New Democrats’ and their approach to racial politics,” Alexander wrote.





Very nicely done, Ms. Alexander.
 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
8. I wonder how many Bernie supporters who cut and paste Alexander's anti-Clinton writings
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:33 AM
Apr 2016

had bothered to read "The New Jim Crow" - or had even heard of her - before she started criticizing the Clintons. And I wonder how many of them have made the effort to read it since.

Nanjeanne

(4,974 posts)
9. I wonder if Clintonites can be more condescending and make assumptions about
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:37 AM
Apr 2016

People they have never met n

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
11. Why do you believe it matters whether or not people have read her book?
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:02 PM
Apr 2016

It's not your place in life to decide what people do or do not get out of someone else's words, irrespective of whether or not they've read that person's book. If you know of other conversational ground rules that would support your artificial requirements, now would be the time to let us know about those rules so that we can hash them out.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Michelle Alexander Just R...