DOCSLIB.ORG

The War on Drugs in the American States: Variations in Sentencing Policies Over Time

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The War on Drugs in the American States: Variations in Sentencing Policies Over Time Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons School of Public Service Theses & Dissertations School of Public Service Summer 2014 The aW r on Drugs in the American States: Variations in Sentencing Policies Over Time Katherine Anna Neill Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/publicservice_etds Part of the Criminology Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Neill, Katherine A.. "The aW r on Drugs in the American States: Variations in Sentencing Policies Over Time" (2014). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, , Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/bs1d-e877 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/publicservice_etds/30 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Public Service at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Public Service Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WAR ON DRUGS IN THE AMERICAN STATES: VARIATIONS IN SENTENCING POLICIES OVER TIME By Katharine Anna Neill B.S., 2008, George M ason University M.P.A . 2010, Old Dominion University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN POLICY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY AugustjLK j Reviewed by: Aoprnved by. Vinod Agarwal, Ph.D., Dean Jphpl C. Morris (Director) Strome College of Business Professor of Public Administration and Urban Studies Jo^jjA.ombard, Ph.D. V/ie Yusuf (Member) Graduate program Director and Ch Associate Professor of Public Department of Urban Studies and Administration and Urban Studies Public Administration ABSTRACT Since the 1970s US drug policy has focused on harsh punishments for drug offenders. A wealth of research indicates that the social and political context of the drug policy discourse is a greater factor in determining drug policy than rising rates of drug use or drug-related crime. While considerable research has examined the factors driving federal drug policy, fewer studies have examined drug policy at the state level. This dissertation studies state drug sentencing policy to determine what factors may explain variation across states. By focusing on the period from 1975 to 2002, this study concentrates on policies passed during the War on Drugs era, which began in 1971 and has only recently shown signs of abating. A policy design framework is used to argue that the social constructions of drug offenders—the way in which they are perceived in society—determines the policies directed towards them, and that negative perceptions are likely to result in more punitive policy. This research also hypothesizes that several other factors are likely to influence punitive drug policy, including the desire to control threatening populations, a conservative political environment, and bureaucratic incentives to pursue drug crimes. Using panel data analysis, this study finds partial support for the premises that negative social constructions of drug offenders and bureaucratic incentives affect state drug sentencing policy. DEDICATION To my parents, Anne and Thomas Neill, who shared with me their passion for learning at an early age, and who continue to support my intellectual pursuits. To my husband Michael Harris, who has supported me through this long journey and has patiently tended to my computer-related meltdowns. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee members, John Morris, Wie Yusuf, and Travis Linnemann, for always being available to give me feedback and for providing encouragement throughout the dissertation process. I would like to thank the faculty members of the Department of Urban Studies and Public Administration, whose courses deepened my understanding of public administration and policy and helped make this dissertation achievable. I would like to thank my fellow doctoral students, from whom I learned so much in classroom discussions, and who have been there to share in my graduate student frustrations. I would like to thank Meg Jones, who has been an excellent Program Manager and a dear friend, and has helped me countless times during my years at Old Dominion. I would like to thank my committee chair John Morris, for acting as my mentor over the course of my graduate student career and for giving me confidence in my academic abilities. V TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................................x CHAPTER O N E ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. 1 The War on Drugs: A Policy Failure ....................................................................................................2 Policy Weapons in the War on Drugs Arsenal .....................................................................6 Recent Developments............................................................................................................................ 8 Why this Research Matters ................................................................................................................ 10 Plan o f Dissertation ...............................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER TW O ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 THEATRICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .........................................................................16 Values, Interests, and Power in the Policy Process ....................................................................17 Policy Design................................................................................................................................18 The social construction of target populations ...................................................... 22 Social con tro l ...............................................................................................................................26 The Development of US Drug Policy...............................................................................................31 Early Years .....................................................................................................................................31 1900s-1970s: The Rise of Anti-Drug Policy ....................................................................... 33 The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 ................................................................................34 1950s-1970s: Punishment vs. treatm ent ............................................................ 35 The 1970 Controlled Substance Act ...................................................................... 39 The 1980s: Reagan and the War on Drugs ....................................................................... 41 Punishing drug offenders: Legislative efforts....................................................42 Consequences of the War on Drugs ......................................................................47 Social constructions in the modern drug w a r ....................................................49 Priority Shift? 2000s to Present............................................................................................ 57 Summary of Historical Developments ................................................................................61 Building a Model of State Drug Policy Decisions ..........................................................................64 Social Construction of Target Populations .........................................................................67 Drug Policy as a Tool for Social Control ............................................................................. 69 Political Explanations ................................................................................................................76 Bureaucratic Forces .................................................................................................................. 82 Sum m ary .......................................................................................................................................84 CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................................................88 DATA AND METHODS............................................................................................................................................... 88 Data and Data Collection ......................................................................................................................88 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................................90 Habitual offender laws ................................................................................................91
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law and Order
    THE HAMLYN LECTURES Thirty-seventh series Law and Order Ralf Dahrendorf K.B.E., F.B.A. STEVENS Law and Order by Ralf Dahrendorf K.B.E., F.B.A. Professor of Social Science in the University of Constance; formerly Director of the London School of Economics In this book, based on his 1985 Hamlyn Lectures, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf considers the fundamental questions posed for the social order of free countries by the decline in respect for the law. Taking as his point of departure the terrors of our streets and the riots in our football grounds, Professor Dahrendorf discusses the implication for social order and liberty of such issues as unemployment, the cracks in the party system and the growing disorientation of the young. There are four major themes in the book— • The Road to Anomia—crime statistics are but the most dramatic symptoms of a loosening of social ties and norms. • Seeking Rousseau, Finding Hobbes—a widespread dream of goodness has resulted in the dismantling of some of the institutions designed to protect us from badness. • The Struggle for the Social Contract—underlying social changes have led from the class struggle to conflicts about the boundaries of society. • Society and Liberty—most reactions to the new condition involve threats to liberty—we need to reassert the links between law, order and liberty. Professor Dahrendorf has had a most distinguished career, both in his native Germany and in the United Kingdom. In Law and Order he offers a lively and stimulating analysis of a topic of vital importance in the life of every citizen.
    [Show full text]
  • War on Drugs": Free the P.O.W.S
    California Western Law Review Volume 55 Number 1 Article 8 12-20-2018 The Sobering Failure of America's "War on Drugs": Free the P.O.W.s Meagan K. Nettles Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Nettles, Meagan K. (2018) "The Sobering Failure of America's "War on Drugs": Free the P.O.W.s," California Western Law Review: Vol. 55 : No. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol55/iss1/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nettles: The Sobering Failure of America's "War on Drugs": Free the P.O.W FINAL Nettles camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/8/2019 10:26 AM COMMENTS THE SOBERING FAILURE OF AMERICA’S “WAR ON DRUGS”: FREE THE P.O.W.S TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 276 I. THE EVOLUTION OF SENTENCING POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................... 282 A. The Development of Indeterminate Sentencing and the Rehabilitative Model ......................................................... 282 B. The Shift to Determinative Sentencing with a Punitive Purpose ............................................................................. 284 C. The Ebb and Flow of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Policy and the War on Drugs............................................ 286 D. Tension Between Judicial, Congressional, and the Commission’s Power to Determine Drug Crime Sentencing ......................................................................... 289 E. How Punitive Are Mandatory Minimum Sentences? ......... 292 F. Second Class Citizens: The Continued Oppression of Collateral Consequences .................................................. 294 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime, 1966-1967
    The original documents are located in Box D6, folder “Ford Press Releases - Crime, 1966- 1967 (2)” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box D6 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE ••Release in PMs of August 3-- Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., prepared for delivery on the floor of the House on Thursday, August 3, 1967. Mr. Speaker, America today is shaken by a deep national crisis--a near- breakdown of law and order made even more severe by civil disorders in which criminal elements are heavily engaged. The law-abiding citizens of America who have suffered at the hands of the lawless and the extremists are anxiously awaiting a remedy. This is a time for swift and decisive acti~n.
    [Show full text]
  • 20-5904 Terry V. United States (06/14/2021)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TERRY v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 20–5904. Argued May 4, 2021—Decided June 14, 2021 Petitioner Tarahrick Terry contends that he is eligible to receive a sen- tence reduction for his 2008 crack cocaine conviction. In 1986, Con- gress established mandatory-minimum penalties for certain drug of- fenses. That legislation defined three relevant penalties for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The first two carried mandatory min- imum sentences based on drug quantity: a 5-year mandatory mini- mum (triggered by either 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder cocaine) and a 10-year mandatory minimum (triggered by ei- ther 50 grams of crack or 5 kilograms of powder). 100 Stat. 3207–2, 3207–3. The third penalty differed from the first two: it did not carry a mandatory minimum sentence, did not treat crack and powder co- caine offenses differently, and did not depend on drug quantity. Id., at 3207–4. Petitioner was subjected to this third penalty when he pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession with intent to distribute an un- specified amount of crack.
    [Show full text]
  • Allen Rostron, the Law and Order Theme in Political and Popular Culture
    OCULREV Fall 2012 Rostron 323-395 (Do Not Delete) 12/17/2012 10:59 AM OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 37 FALL 2012 NUMBER 3 ARTICLES THE LAW AND ORDER THEME IN POLITICAL AND POPULAR CULTURE Allen Rostron I. INTRODUCTION “Law and order” became a potent theme in American politics in the 1960s. With that simple phrase, politicians evoked a litany of troubles plaguing the country, from street crime to racial unrest, urban riots, and unruly student protests. Calling for law and order became a shorthand way of expressing contempt for everything that was wrong with the modern permissive society and calling for a return to the discipline and values of the past. The law and order rallying cry also signified intense opposition to the Supreme Court’s expansion of the constitutional rights of accused criminals. In the eyes of law and order conservatives, judges needed to stop coddling criminals and letting them go free on legal technicalities. In 1968, Richard Nixon made himself the law and order candidate and won the White House, and his administration continued to trumpet the law and order theme and blame weak-kneed liberals, The William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. B.A. 1991, University of Virginia; J.D. 1994, Yale Law School. The UMKC Law Foundation generously supported the research and writing of this Article. 323 OCULREV Fall 2012 Rostron 323-395 (Do Not Delete) 12/17/2012 10:59 AM 324 Oklahoma City University Law Review [Vol. 37 particularly judges, for society’s ills.
    [Show full text]
  • Apartheid Baltimore Style: the Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910-1913 Garrett Op Wer
    Maryland Law Review Volume 42 | Issue 2 Article 4 Apartheid Baltimore Style: the Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910-1913 Garrett oP wer Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Garrett oP wer, Apartheid Baltimore Style: the Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910-1913, 42 Md. L. Rev. 289 (1983) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol42/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. APARTHEID BALTIMORE STYLE: THE RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION ORDINANCES OF 1910-1913* GARRETT POWER** On May 15, 1911, Baltimore Mayor J. Barry Mahool, who was known as an earnest advocate of good government, women's sufferage, and social justice, signed into law "lain ordinance for preserving peace, preventing conflict and ill feeling between the white and colored races in Baltimore city, and promoting the general welfare of the city by pro- viding, so far as practicable, for the use of separate blocks by white and colored people for residences, churches and schools."' Baltimore's seg- regation law was the first such law to be aimed at blacks in the United States, but it was not the last. Various southern cities in Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky enacted similar laws.2 The legal significance of housing segregation laws in the United States was shortlived.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 United States Sentencing Commission
    Report to the Congress: Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 United States Sentencing Commission Patti B. Saris Chair Charles R. Breyer Vice Chair Dabney L. Friedrich Commissioner Rachel E. Barkow Commissioner William H. Pryor, Jr. Commissioner Jonathan J. Wroblewski Ex Officio J. Patricia Wilson Smoot Ex Officio August 2015 Table of Contents SECTION ONE………………………………………………….……1 SECTION FOUR…………………….…………………...….………31 Executive Summary……………………………………………………3 Increased Fine Penalties for Major Drug Traffickers…32 Historical Background…………….…………………………………4 SECTION FIVE……………………….…………………...….…..….33 SECTION TWO……………………….…………………...….…..…9 Enhancements for Acts of Violence during the Course of a Drug Trafficking Offense …………….…………………...……34 Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction……………...……10 Increased Emphasis on Defendant’s Role & Certain . What has been the impact of the FSA on federal Aggravating Factors …………….…………………...………….…34 prosecutorial practices? …………….……………….…………11 Increased Emphasis on Defendant’s Role & Certain . Are crack cocaine sentences more similar to powder Mitigating Factors …………….…………………...................……35 cocaine sentences? …………….……………….…………...……23 . What has been the impact of the FSA on the federal prison population? …………….……………….…………...……26 CONCLUSION …………….…………………..………………...……37 . Has there been an increase in use of crack cocaine after the FSA? …………….………………………….….…………...……27 Endnotes …………………….…………………..………………...……39 SECTION THREE……………………………………...….…....…29 Appendix ...………………….…………………..………………...……43 Elimination of
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, S
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: THE FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2010, S. 1789 FEDERAL CRACK REFORM BILL Q1: Has Congress passed crack cocaine reform legislation? A: Yes. On March 17, 2010, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (the FSA), which increases the amount of crack cocaine quantities needed to trigger the five- and 10-year mandatory minimums. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the FSA by a voice vote on July 28, 2010. Q2: Is the bill law? A: Yes. President Obama signed the FSA into law on August 3, 2010. Q3: Does the FSA change any state laws? A: No. The FSA only changes federal crack sentencing laws. Q4: Does the FSA benefit people who are already in prison? A: None of the crack mandatory minimum reforms in the new federal law apply to people who were sentenced for federal crack offenses before August 3, 2010. In other words, the reforms are not “retroactive.” Q5: How does the FSA change the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine? A: Under the old law, conviction for possession with intent to distribute five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine triggered the same five-year sentence. Fifty grams of crack cocaine and five kilograms of powder cocaine triggered the same 10-year sentence. This created what is commonly referred to as the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine. The FSA increased the amounts of crack cocaine needed to trigger the five- and 10-year mandatory minimums, reducing the 100-to-1 ratio to a ratio of 18-to-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Forget Sentencing Equality: Moving from the “Cracked” Cocaine Debate Toward Particular Purpose Sentencing
    LCB_18_1_Art_3_Exum (Do Not Delete) 5/15/2014 6:19 AM FORGET SENTENCING EQUALITY: MOVING FROM THE “CRACKED” COCAINE DEBATE TOWARD PARTICULAR PURPOSE SENTENCING by Jelani Jefferson Exum While a racial equality-themed discourse has traditionally fueled the crack-versus-powder cocaine sentencing debate, this Article asserts that seeking equality in sentencing outcomes is the wrong goal. This Article argues that reformers seeking racial equality in sentencing are misguided in using the cocaine sentencing standards as a benchmark of fairness, because the current cocaine sentencing standards do not effectively serve the purposes of punishment. Rather than focusing on equality, this Article advocates implementing Particular Purpose Sentencing, which involves developing a framework for drug offenses to be analyzed individually and matched with punishments that purposefully address the concerns associated with the particular offense. Particular Purpose Sentencing also requires that, once sentences are matched to a specific purpose, the outcomes of those sentences be studied to ensure that they are fulfilling their particular sentencing purpose. This Article analyzes the legislative and judicial limits of basing sentencing reform on racial equality goals, and explores how implementing Particular Purpose Sentencing has the potential to result in more effective and racially equal consequences. Though this Article introduces Particular Purpose Sentencing using the drug sentencing context, this new sentencing theory can be applied to achieve fairer, more successful sentencing for all offenses. Associate Professor, University of Toledo College of Law. Professor Jefferson Exum wishes to thank the participants of the 2011 and 2012 Central States Law Schools Association Annual Scholarship Conference, the 2012 Southeast/Southwest People of Color Conference, the 2012 Lutie Lytle Scholarship Conference, and the Fall 2012 Case Western faculty exchange (especially Michael Benza and Kevin McMunigal for their insightful comments).
    [Show full text]
  • Levin 1 Representations of Victims, Suspects and Offenders: a Content
    Levin 1 Representations of Victims, Suspects and Offenders: A Content Analysis of Four Television Crime Shows Jessica Levin University of Colorado at Boulder Sociology Department Spring 2013 Honors Committee Members: Dr. Joanne Belknap, Sociology (Chair) Dr. Liam Downey, Sociology Dr. Tracy Ferrell, Program for Writing and Rhetoric Levin 2 ABSTRACT This study draws on Social Learning Theory and uses a content analysis to critically examine the representations of victims, suspects and offenders on fictional crime television shows. Specifically, four such shows were studied: Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Criminal Minds, Body of Proof and Rizzoli & Isles. Although some previous research assessed the representations of suspects and offenders on fictional crime television series, examination of the representations of victims is rare, and to date, no study has included such an extensive list of variables. There were two units of analysis used while coding. Coding of the entire show included the year of the episode, number of victims, number of suspects, number of offenders, type of crime and time of the crime. The second unit of analysis included individual victims, suspects and offenders. An extensive range of demographic data was recorded for each victim, suspect and offender. The results from this study indicate that a very narrow lens is used in television fictional crime show portrayals of victims, suspects and offenders. The findings include a relationship between the type of crime and the television show, the victims’ gender and survival rate, the victims’ race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, the victims’ hair color and whether they were drugged, and the victims’ survival and whether they had children with the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • BLEWETT (12-5226) - and JARREOUS JAMONE BLEWITT (12-5582), - Defendants-Appellants
    RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0336p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, X Plaintiff-Appellee, - - - Nos. 12-5226/5582 v. - > , CORNELIUS DEMORRIS BLEWETT (12-5226) - and JARREOUS JAMONE BLEWITT (12-5582), - Defendants-Appellants. - N Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green. No. 1:04-cr-36-2—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief District Judge. Argued: October 9, 2013 Decided and Filed: December 3, 2013 Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; MERRITT, BOGGS, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH and DONALD, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Frank W. Heft, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants. Terry M. Cushing, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee. Vincent M. Southerland, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Heft, Jr., Scott T. Wendelsdorf, Laura R. Wyrosdick, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants. Terry M. Cushing, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, David M. Lieberman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Vincent M. Southerland, Ria Tabacco Mar, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., New York, New York, Candace C. Crouse, PINALES STACHLER YOUNG BURRELL & CROUSE CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, Douglas A. Berman, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW, Columbus, Ohio, Dennis G. Terez, Jeffrey B. Lazarus, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Reagan, and the Neo-Conservative Backlash to the Civil Rights Movement
    THE GHOSTS OF 1964: RACE, REAGAN, AND THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT Anthony Cook I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 81 II. ANATOMY OF A BACKLASH: INTEREST ALIGNMENT .............................. 84 III. ANATOMY OF A BACKLASH: CONSTRUCTING THE “OTHER” .................. 89 IV. ANATOMY OF A BACKLASH: REVISIONIST NARRATIVE ......................... 96 A. Colorblind Justice ......................................................................... 97 B. Individual Merit .......................................................................... 101 C. American Exceptionalism............................................................ 104 V. BACKLASH, REAGANOMICS, AND THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT .......................................................................................... 107 A. The Neo-Cons .............................................................................. 109 B. Reagan’s Wars ............................................................................ 111 i. Reaganomics and the War on the Working Class ............... 111 ii. Reaganomics and the War on the Poor ............................... 114 iii. Reaganomics and the Spoils of War .................................... 117 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................. 118 I. INTRODUCTION American slavery was “officially” buried by our nation’s ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution.1 But the
    [Show full text]