Racist “Sniffy” Joe Biden


“Sniffy” Joe Biden has been sniffing a lot of “women and children” during his 30-plus years in the public eye, but has always shied away from sniffing “people of color.”

Why won’t “Sniffy” Joe sniff people of color? Is “Sniffy” Joe a racist? According to past history, “Sniffy” Joe is the purest example of the Democrats that turned the party decisively towards “war, austerity and race-baiting.”

“Sniffy” Joe once called state-mandated school integration the most “racist concept” you can come up with, and Barack Obama the first sort of mainstream African American who is “articulate, bright and clean.”

“Sniffy” Joe was also a staunch opponent of “forced busing” in the 1970s”, and leading crusader for “mass incarceration” throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s.

“Sniffy” Joe has described African-American felons as “predators” too sociopathic to rehabilitate and white supremacist senators as his friends.

Whether “Sniffy” Joe can retain the support of “people of color” after voters learn more about his “race-baiting” past, could very well determine the “outcome” of “Sniffy” Joe’s third presidential run.

To explore that question in more detail, let’s pick through “Sniffy” Joe’s voluminous baggage on “racial injustice” before Obama’s ”halo” will shine brighter than the shadow of “Sniffy” Joe’s dark “racist” record.

“Sniffy” Joe helped kill the most effective policy for “improving” black educational attainment that America has ever known. He was for “desegregating” America’s schools, until his constituents were “against” it. When “Sniffy” Joe launched his first campaign for the Senate in 1972, the Supreme Court had just ruled that the Constitution required policymakers to pursue “the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation,” and that forcing “white students to attend schools in black neighborhoods and vice versa” was a legitimate means of doing so. Being an enlightened liberal, “Sniffy” Joe began his candidacy as an “advocate” for such policies. He accused Republicans of “demagoguing” the busing issue, and appealing to “white voters” ugliest instincts.

But as “Sniffy” Joe’s campaign progressed, and “Sniffy” Joe discerned that the “arc of history” was bending toward “white backlash,” the young whippersnapper“bent” with it. He became a caricature of a “white northern liberal,”  arguing that “forced busing” was appropriate for the South, where segregation was the product of “racist laws,” but unnecessary for the North, where, “Sniffy” Joe pretended, it merely reflected the “preferences” of the white and black communities.

Once in the Senate, “Sniffy” Joe continued to triangulate, voting for most, though not all, of the “anti-busing” amendments that came before him. But for his overwhelmingly “white” constituents, nothing less than massive “resistance to busing” would suffice. The New Castle County Neighborhood Schools Association booed “Sniffy” Joe off the stage at one event in 1974.

One year later, “Sniffy” Joe broke ranks with northern liberals and joined his virulently “racist” North Carolina colleague Jesse Helms in voting to “kneecap” all federal efforts to “integrate” schools, anywhere in the country. Specifically, “Sniffy” Joe voted to “bar” the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from requiring schools to “provide information on the racial makeup of their student bodies” and thereby making it “nigh impossible” for Uncle Sam to withhold “federal funds” from school districts that “refused” to integrate.

The measure was rejected. Nevertheless, “Sniffy” Joe persisted. And his “cowardly” example inspired other self-professed liberals to throw “racial justice” under the bus. As the historian Jason Sokol writes:

“Immediately after the Helms amendment was tabled, Sniffy Joe proposed his own amendment to the $36 billion education bill, “stipulating” that none of those federal funds could be used by school systems to assign teachers or students to schools … for reasons of race. His amendment would prevent some faceless bureaucrat from deciding that any child, black or white, should fit in some predetermined ratio.” 

Like the Helms gambit, “Sniffy” Joe’s provision would gut “Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act. But this time, a number of liberal senators that had “opposed” Helms amendment now supported “Sniffy” Joe. Warren Magnuson and Scoop Jackson of Washington, where Seattle faced “impending” integration orders; and Thomas Eagleton and Stuart Symington of Missouri, where Kansas City “confronted” a similar fate. Mike Mansfield, the majority leader from Montana, also “jumped” on board. Watching his liberal colleagues “defect” Republican Jacob Javits of New York mused, “They’re scared to death on busing.” The Senate approved “Sniffy” Joe’s amendment. He had managed to turn a 48-43 loss for the “anti-busing forces” into a 50-43 victory.

The NAACP called “Sniffy” Joe’s proposal “an anti-black amendment.” The Senate’s sole African-American member, Ed Brooke, called it “the greatest symbolic defeat for civil rights since 1964.” He helped his fellow liberals to “reconcile” themselves to the “wrong side of history” by recasting integrationists as the real “racists.”

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicano’s, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with,” he said in a 1975 interview recently unearthed. “What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!”

“Sniffy” Joe echoed this in remarks to NPR that same year, saying, “I think the concept of busing … that we are going to integrate people so that they all have the same access and they learn to grow up with one another and all the rest, is a rejection of the whole movement of black pride … a rejection of the entire black awareness concept, where black is beautiful, black culture should be studied; and the cultural awareness of the importance of their own identity, their own individuality.” 

As of 2007, “Sniffy” Joe believed that this stance had “aged” well. In a memoir released that year, “Sniffy” Joe derided busing as “a liberal train wreck.” Education experts disagreed. Since some municipalities did “integrate” their schools through “busing,” while others did not, scholars have been able to “evaluate” the policy’s efficacy.

In 2011, researchers at Berkeley found that “black” students who had spent five years in “desegregated” schools went on to earn on average 25 percent more than those who “remained” in segregated schools or, in “Sniffy” Joe’s phrasing, schools that honored the “black awareness concept.”

The rationale for integration was not, as “Sniffy” Joe suggested, that black kids need to sit next to “blue-eyed ones” in order to retain information. Rather, it is that, in a racially stratified society, overwhelmingly African-American schools will, almost inevitably, be sites of “concentrated poverty, under-investment, and relatively low social capital”, i.e., places where children from low-income families will be unlikely to form connections with children from higher-income ones. “Sniffy” Joe never ceased expressing his concern for black children’s inadequate educational opportunities. He has done more to perpetuate those “inadequacies” than to remedy them.

“Sniffy” Joe worked tirelessly, over several decades, to make America’s profoundly “racist” criminal justice system more “punitive” than any other advanced democracy’s. It is hard to name an infamously “unjust” feature of America’s criminal-justice system that “Sniffy” Joe didn’t help to bring about. “Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, civil asset forfeiture, and extensive use of the death penalty.” He was involved in establishing them all.

“Sniffy” Joe was famous for his “lead” role in crafting the 1994 crime bill, or, as he preferred to call it as recently as 2015, the “1994 Sniffy Joe Crime Bill.” Some aspects of that legislation remain popular within the Democratic Party, among them, the ”Violence Against Women Act, a federal assault-weapons ban, and funds for community oriented” policing. But in 2019 America, a place where our nation’s “violent crime rate” is near historic lows, while its “incarceration” rate hovers around world “historic” highs, the bill’s broader “legacy” is ignominious.

The Brennan Center succinctly summarized that legacy on the 20th anniversary of the bill’s passage:

“It expanded the death penalty, creating 60 new death penalty offenses under 41 federal capital statutes. It eliminated education funding for incarcerated students, effectively gutting prison education programs. Despite a wealth of research showing education increases post-release employment, reduces recidivism, and improves outcomes for the formerly incarcerated and their families, this change has not been reversed.” 

The bill created a wave of change toward “harsher” state sentencing policy. That change was driven by funding incentives. The bill’s $9.7 billion in federal funding for “prison construction” went only to states that adopted “Truth-in-Sentencing” (TIS) laws, which lead to defendants “serving” far longer prison terms. Within 5 years, 29 states had TIS laws on the books, 24 more than when the bill was signed. By 2000 the state had “added” over 12,000 prison beds and “incarcerated” 28 percent more people than a decade before.

And for the bulk of his political career, “Sniffy” Joe made mandating such sentences one of his “defining” causes. As a high-ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Sniffy” Joe didn’t just craft the 1994 crime bill, he also ushered a variety of other “draconian” measures into law.

During the 1980s, “Sniffy” Joe helped pass laws reinstating the “federal death penalty, abolishing federal parole, increasing penalties for marijuana possession, expanding the use of civil asset forfeiture, and establishing a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for possession of crack cocaine (used disproportionately by poor nonwhite people) and powder cocaine (used disproportionately by rich white people).”

“Sniffy” Joe’s support for these measures wasn’t a wholly defensive “responsive” to public outrage over violent crime. Rather, it was a proactive effort to capitalize on the electorate’s increasingly “draconian” mood. In 1989, George H. W. Bush gave a national address outlining his plans to “ramp up” the war on drugs.

“Sniffy” Joe delivered the Democratic response, and “savaged” the Republican’s plan to drastically increase “incarceration” for drug crimes from the right. “Quite frankly, the president’s plan is not tough enough, bold enough, or imaginative enough to meet the crisis at hand,” he told the American people. “In a nutshell, the president’s plan does not include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, enough prosecutors to convict them, enough judges to sentence them, or enough prison cells to put them away for a long time.”

Four years later, “Sniffy” Joe remained at the cutting edge of “law-and-order” liberalism. In a Senate floor speech spotlighted by CNN’s KFile, “Sniffy” Joe raised awareness of the mythical threat posed by super-predators, a rising generation of “inner city” children so comprehensively “failed” by their parents and society, they had developed into “incurable sociopaths” whom the state could “quarantine but never rehabilitate.”

“There is a cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them, born out of wedlock, without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing because they literally … because they literally have not been socialized, they literally have not had an opportunity” he explained. “Sniffy” Joe then urged his colleagues to support “aid” to such youths now, or else they would “become the predators 15 years from now.”

As for the already existing predators, “they are beyond the pale many of those people, beyond the pale,” he quipped. “We have no choice but to take them out of society … rehabilitation, when it occurs, we don’t understand it and notice it, and even when we notice it and we know it occurs, we don’t know why. So you cannot make rehabilitation a condition for release.” 

The super-predators “proved” to be a myth. But the specter of inner cities teeming with irredeemable “monsters” and abandoned children helped rationalize both “mass incarceration,” and its racially inequitable character.

“Sniffy” Joe says the most racially “insensitive” things when it “suits” his agenda.

Beyond his role in perpetuating “systemic” racism “Sniffy” Joe has long displayed a penchant for political incorrectness. His suggestion that Barack Obama was the first “clean and articulate” African-American to run for president is probably the most infamous of his gaffes.

“Sniffy” Joe also told a crowd of black voters in 2012 that Mitt Romney would put you all back in chains, and has a habit of badly impersonating Indian convenience-store clerks and call-center employees. But “Sniffy” Joe’s most troubling “racially tinged remarks” might be those he does not regard as such.

Specifically, “Sniffy” Joe has long boasted of his warm and often legislatively productive relationships with “white supremacist” southern senators. At a rally for Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones in the fall of 2017 he said “I’ve been around so long, I worked with James Eastland. Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

“Sniffy” Joe’s sentiments read like a “satire of nostalgia for bipartisan comity,” laying bare the “amorality and elitism” inherent to celebrating collegiality for its own sake. Needless to say, a political system in which a man who believed that his “black” constituents belonged to an “inferior race”, and must be quarantined to their own institutions to prevent the “mongrelization” of the white race, was not one that “worked” well for said constituents.

Biden praised segregationist Strom Thurmond as ‘closest friend’ “Biden and Thurmond pushed legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.”

Eastland isn’t the only white supremacist “Sniffy” Joe can’t help expressing grudging “admiration” for. He also warmly “eulogized” Strom Thurmond at his funeral, and his insistence on fondly “recalling” his relationship with Jesse Helms “grates on even members of his own team, who have told him as much.”

“Sniffy” Joe’s faith in such senators’ “entitlement” to dignity, and capacity for “redemption,” stands in marked contrast to his erstwhile views on rehabilitating “predators” and “violent thugs.”

How does one reconcile “Sniffy” Joe’s considerable complicity in “racial injustice” with his enviable “popularity” among his racist “African-American” base?

One answer is “Sniffy” Joe’s apparent strength with black voters is “illusory” coasting off of his name recognition and association with Barack Obama. Once the primary campaign puts the “history summarized above” under the spotlight, along with “Sniffy” Joe’s myriad other heresies against “progressivism,” including his support for bankruptcy reforms that hurt low-income consumers, plus his shoddy treatment of Anita Hill, and his advocacy for the “Iraq War,” black voters will see through his “malarkey.”  

9 Things That Show Black Privilege is Real — and Racist

Another explanation is that black voters find “Sniffy” Joe’s heresies against “racial” liberalism “UN-forgivable.” That said and the severity of “Sniffy” Joe’s ideological “racist” offenses, one can only hope the “black” community steps off the Democratic “plantation” and conclude that “Sniffy” Joe is unfit for the presidency.

“Sniffy” Joe, who will turn 77 in November, also appears to be suffering from a degenerative speech impediment.

To combat his “racist” past, “Sniffy” Joe has announced and “promised” from now on to also sniff “people of color” to gain their “votes” for a third run to become president.

Will Black Voters Still Love Biden When They Remember Who He Was?
Joe Biden’s Fifty Years of Flip-Flops
Old white Joe tees up strike three for the presidency
Senator Biden Lectured City on What’s ‘Good for the Negro 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: