Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate who has answered only seven questions from journalists since declaring, has done something unexpected. She has taken a political risk. She has declared that the era mass incarceration is over. The phrasing echoes that of a Democratic president of the 1990s who once, falsely, declared that the era of big government was over. This was part of his triangulation policy – positioning himself as halfway between traditional Democrats and the newly resurgent Republican Party. He used the phrase to pivot to the right. But this is a pivot to the left. Even before his conversion to welfare reform and ‘ending’ big government, President Clinton was tough on crime. He “interrupted” his campaign for president in 1992 to fly back to Arkansas and sign the death warrant of a mentally disabled black man, a man with a mental age of eight, to demonstrate just how tough on crime he was. But Potential President Clinton wants to reverse the mandatory sentences introduced by President Clinton. Given her opposition also to trade deals, living in the White House for eight years with man championed NAFTA and “three strikes, you’re out” must have been hell.
Crime is not the issue it was in the days when New York City elected Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton awarded himself medals for toughness by executing the mentally disabled. Crime has declined dramatically in recent decades. Some liberals bleat that it is terrible for incarceration to be so high when crime is relatively low. But isn’t it just possible that locking up criminals is the reason crime is low? (The causal link could also flow in the opposite direction. If police are not so stretched, dashing straight from one crime scene to another, perhaps they are now able to solve more crimes).
A sensible review of criminal justice policy is reasonable. The columnist would start by repealing a few laws. Drug prohibition has failed monstrously, and hugely contributes to other crimes. But simply whining that there is too much imprisonment is not a sensible review. Violent criminals ought to be locked up. That this is a naked political plea to liberals should be evident from her reference in a speech about the death of Freddie Gray to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. For all the liberal belief that there is a pattern here, there is not. Martin and Brown were killed lawfully in self-defense. Gray was killed through actions by police that were, at least, bad judgment and could well – the matter has not been investigated yet – have been worse than that. Eric Garner in Staten Island was killed by police brutality. These are different cases and the only linking factor is a trivial one: they were all black.
But despite being praised by liberal bloggers for identifying the “pattern” in these deaths, Clinton carefully and precisely did no such thing. She let people conclude that she saw a relationship between these deaths, but only actually mentioned Martin and Brown in echoing calls from their families for peace and unity.
But Clinton still took a risk. She has no significant competition in the primary where this stance may help her but will have in the general election. A few high profile incidents could put crime back up the agenda and cost her significant support from independents.
Quentin Langley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Bedfordshire Business School as well as a freelance columnist published in the UK and all parts of the US. He blogs on social media and crisis communications at brandjacknews.com
Filed under: U.S. Politics
