The Crack Era
Part 2: Prelude to an Epidemic: Tensions, Predictions, and the Turning Tide
Since I was six years old, I have harbored a profound curiosity about history. I was always eager to uncover what existed before my time and to understand the nuances of life in bygone eras. This innate curiosity led me to major in history at Ferris State University, where I delved deeply into the study of African American history. It was during my academic journey that I became fascinated with the causes and effects of various phenomena on society, including the breakdown of families and communities. Understanding the roots of these breakdowns, I believed, was crucial to finding solutions to mend them. As I’ve reflected on my life, marked by significant losses — friends gone too soon, organizations dissolved into memory, minorities’ voices fading — I’ve come to realize a common denominator in each of these instances: crack cocaine. This realization isn’t just an academic observation; it’s deeply personal. Crack cocaine has had a profound impact on my life and, to a certain degree, continues to affect me and those around me. This acknowledgement brings me to the core of why writing this series now, particularly in an election year, is so crucial. It’s a moment to re-evaluate what happened before, during, and where we stand today in a still-recovering Black America.
Crack cocaine’s arrival and spread during the “crack era” left an indelible mark on American society, particularly within African American communities. The substance didn’t just represent a new addictive drug; it catalyzed a multifaceted societal crisis, contributing to an unprecedented rise in addiction, incarceration, and community disintegration. My interest in understanding the historical context of these issues stems from a deep-seated belief that by dissecting the past, we can uncover pathways to healing and recovery. This journey through the crack era is more than a historical recount; it’s a personal narrative intertwined with a broader social analysis. It’s about understanding the magnitude of crack cocaine’s impact on individual lives and communities and seeking pathways to recovery and resilience. As we navigate these stories, we confront the enduring legacy of crack cocaine, not just as a chapter in history, but as a continuing influence that demands our attention and action. Through this series, I aim to illuminate the shadows of the past, confront the challenges of the present, and forge a path toward a more informed and hopeful future.
From Viral Momentum to Pushback
The viral spread of its actions and messages helped the civil rights movement reach unprecedented heights in the early 1960s. Significant legislative victories, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which represented significant steps toward racial equality in the United States, marked this time period. However, by 1965, this forward momentum began to meet with considerable resistance. This pushback was not limited to the South’s segregationist strongholds but emerged nationwide, marking a pivotal shift in the movement’s trajectory.
The resistance to civil rights progress manifested starkly in the urban riots that erupted in places like Watts, Newark, Detroit, and Chicago. These uprisings were detailed in the report by the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968), commonly known as the Kerner Commission Report, which stated, “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” The report underscored the riots as responses not just to racial injustice but to profound socioeconomic disparities. Amid these tensions, Martin Luther King Jr.’s focus evolved significantly. His experiences in Chicago, where he led marches against segregation and faced immense hostility, prompted a broader critique of systemic inequalities. This period of reevaluation led King to emphasize Black empowerment and the need for economic justice more forcefully. In his 1967 speech, “Where Do We Go From Here?” King declared, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.”
This rhetorical shift paved the way for the Poor People’s Campaign, an ambitious effort to secure economic rights and reparations for all disadvantaged Americans. King’s advocacy for economic justice, including his support for reparations, was articulated in his plans for the campaign and reflected his belief in the inseparability of racial and economic liberation. However, this expanded focus was met with skepticism and concern from various quarters, including elements within the civil rights movement itself. Some people considered King's advocacy for economic justice and his mobilization for the Poor People's Campaign to be radical departures from his earlier focus on desegregation and voting rights. His call for a “radical redistribution of economic and political power,” as outlined in his speech “The Three Evils of Society,” delivered at the National Conference on New Politics in 1967, challenged the nation to confront deeply entrenched inequalities. The evolution of King’s activism and his assassination in 1968 left an indelible mark on the civil rights movement. The loss of King was not just a personal tragedy but a pivotal moment that forced the movement to confront its future direction amidst ongoing challenges. King’s final years, with their emphasis on economic justice and empowerment, underscore the complex legacy of a leader who recognized the interconnectedness of all forms of inequality and sought to address them head-on.
Economic Empowerment vs. Social Policy
Martin Luther King Jr.’s advocacy for economic empowerment and justice for Black Americans encountered significant headwinds amid the broader political and social transformations of the 1960s. One of the era’s hallmark initiatives, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs, was launched with the lofty goals of eliminating poverty and racial injustice, thus aiming to forge a more equitable American society. These programs, encompassing a wide range of policy areas from education to health care to housing, were ambitious in scope. In a speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964, Johnson envisioned the Great Society as a place where “men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods” . However, the Great Society’s reach and intentions quickly became sources of controversy and backlash. Critics argued that the initiative’s expansive welfare programs would undermine the work ethic, promote dependency on government assistance, and destabilize family structures within Black communities, who were among the primary beneficiaries of these social programs.
As it emerged, the analysis presented in Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report presciently articulated how welfare systems, albeit unintentionally, destabilized African American family dynamics by de-incentivizing the formation of nuclear families. The crux of his argument highlighted that the financial aid provided by these welfare programs was disproportionately directed towards households led by a single parent, thereby sidelining black men from their traditional familial roles. This economic marginalization rendered black men ostensibly redundant within the family unit, fostering a dynamic where women possessed increased leverage due to their direct receipt of financial support. This shift not only isolated black men but also reverberated across broader societal structures, influencing gender relations within domestic spheres, professional environments, and even the educational sector. Notably, this transformation has been particularly pronounced in the context of education, where, in locales such as Chicago, black men constitute less than 4% of the workforce. This scenario is further complicated when considering the socio-economic ravages inflicted by the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, which exacerbated the disintegration of black community structures and intensified the challenges facing African American families.
Get Dr. Bryan Jordan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The epidemic also led to increased incarceration rates among black men, further removing them from their families and communities, while leaving many women to raise children alone. This era underscored and intensified the challenges faced by single-parent households, as communities grappling with the epidemic also had to navigate the consequences of mass incarceration and the continued lack of economic opportunities. Many people viewed the expansive welfare programs of the Great Society and the civil rights movement's success in securing laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as necessary steps towards redressing long-standing injustices. Yet, these same actions provoked a conservative backlash that viewed these measures as federal overreach and a threat to the social order. Critics of the Great Society argued that the welfare programs encouraged dependency on government assistance, undermining individual responsibility and the work ethic. This sentiment was echoed in political rhetoric that called for a return to “law and order,” a veiled critique of the civil unrest and urban riots that had become more frequent as African American communities continued to fight for their rights.
The Southern Strategy
The Southern Strategy represents a critical juncture in American political history, where racial dynamics, civil rights achievements, and economic empowerment initiatives intertwined with a significant shift in the political landscape. This strategy, primarily associated with the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, aimed to gain political support in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans. It marked a realignment that had profound implications for civil rights and economic policies affecting Black Americans. The groundwork for the Southern Strategy was laid in the context of the civil rights movement’s victories and the subsequent backlash that these achievements generated among certain white constituencies in the South. Historian Kevin M. Kruse in his work, “White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism,” details how conservative politicians capitalized on racial tensions and the fear of social change to garner support. The strategy involved subtle appeals to racial anxieties, often couched in terms of state rights and opposition to federal intervention, rather than overtly racist rhetoric. This approach sought to exploit the existing discontent among white Southerners with the Democratic Party’s increasing support for civil rights under leaders like Lyndon B. Johnson, who spearheaded the Great Society programs and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson himself reportedly lamented the impact of his civil rights agenda on the Democratic Party’s fortunes in the South, famously predicting that the passage of the Civil Rights Act would cause the Democrats to lose the South for a generation. The Southern Strategy’s emphasis on state rights and opposition to federal intervention also had significant economic implications, particularly regarding the Great Society programs aimed at eliminating poverty and racial injustice. Critics of these programs, as highlighted by the controversy surrounding the Moynihan Report, argued that they fostered dependency and undermined traditional family structures, particularly in Black communities. The Southern Strategy's political shift fueled skepticism of federal social programs and a push for conservative economic policies that prioritized tax cuts, deregulation, and a decrease in government spending on welfare.
Activism to ‘Benign Neglect’: Nixon’s Impact on Civil Rights and the Black Community
The late 1960s and early 1970s marked a significant shift in U.S. domestic policy, particularly with regard to the Black community and civil rights. Under President Richard Nixon, who assumed office in 1969, the federal government’s approach to civil rights and urban issues underwent a noticeable transformation, steering away from the activist government interventions characteristic of the Johnson era and towards a strategy that critics have described as “benign neglect.” Nixon’s administration signaled a departure from the ambitious Great Society programs initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which aimed to address poverty and racial injustice through expansive federal involvement in social services. While not outright dismantling these programs, Nixon’s policies reflected a more conservative philosophy that emphasized state and local control, self-help, and private enterprise as solutions to America’s social problems. This approach often resulted in reduced federal support for urban development and antipoverty initiatives, directly impacting Black communities that were disproportionately affected by poverty and disenfranchisement.
Senator Moynihan, who would become Nixon's urban affairs advisor, suggested in a leaked memo that the issue of race could benefit from a period of benign neglect. The idea behind this apporach was that less attention to race issues and a reduction in the heated rhetoric of the civil rights movement could lead to a natural cooling off of racial tensions. Critics, however, argued that this policy amounted to an abdication of the federal government’s responsibility to actively combat racial inequalities and support the needs of Black Americans. Instead of cooling tensions, it was seen as neglecting the urgent social and economic issues facing Black communities. Nixon’s emphasis on “law and order” and his initiation of the War on Drugs further exemplified his administration’s approach to issues affecting the Black community. Although presented as a campaign against drug abuse and crime, these policies disproportionately targeted urban areas and contributed to the mass incarceration of Black individuals. Critics argue that the War on Drugs was, in effect, a war on Black America, exacerbating social and economic disparities and cementing a cycle of poverty and incarceration that would have lasting impacts on Black communities.
During Nixon’s presidency, the economic policies implemented tended to favor suburban and rural areas over urban centers, where a significant portion of the Black population lived. Federal investment in urban infrastructure, housing, and social services declined, contributing to the deterioration of many inner-city neighborhoods. This decline was further compounded by economic recessions in the early 1970s, which hit Black workers particularly hard, as they were often the first to be laid off and the last to be rehired. The period of the late 1960s to the mid-1970s under Nixon was a time of significant change and challenge for the Black community in the United States. The strategies of “benign neglect” and an emphasis on law and order marked a stark departure from the earlier, more hopeful days of the civil rights movement and the Great Society. These policies contributed to a legacy of marginalization and neglect that would shape the socio-economic landscape of Black America for decades to come, raising questions about the role of government in addressing systemic inequalities and the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality.
The Democratic Party Strategies and Urban America from the Late 60s to the Early 70s”
The Democratic Party, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, did not formally embrace a policy of benign neglect; however, the principles underlying this concept have occasionally manifested in the party’s strategic decisions and policy priorities. This approach is particularly evident in how the party has engaged with, or at times failed to address, the challenges facing urban America. Notably, during the crack cocaine epidemic, as well as in matters related to prison and crime, the party’s actions — or lack thereof — reflect elements of this theory. To expand on this, the Democratic Party’s definition of benign neglect refers to their policy or attitude of ignoring a situation rather than dealing with it directly, often in the hope that it will resolve itself without intervention. In the context of urban America, this meant a lack of proactive measures to combat the deep-seated issues of poverty, drug abuse, and crime that disproportionately affected these communities. During the crack epidemic, for example, the response was more focused on punitive measures rather than addressing the root causes of drug addiction and its widespread impact on urban populations. Similarly, in dealing with crime and prison issues, policies often emphasize incarceration over rehabilitation, reflecting a neglect of the underlying social and economic factors contributing to crime. The Democratic Party’s approach during these periods can be seen as a reflection of benign neglect, where there was a reluctance to fully engage with the complexities of urban crises or to invest in comprehensive solutions that addressed the socio-economic determinants of these issues. While not an official policy, this attitude influenced how the party prioritized its strategies and policies, often at the expense of addressing the immediate and long-term needs of urban communities.
The Democratic Party’s strategy in the decades after the late 1960s has faced criticism not only for elements of benign neglect but also for its handling of divisive social issues, particularly regarding its approach to gender within the African American community. The critique centers on the perception that the party, influenced by feminist theories, disproportionately supported black women over black men. This focus on gender issues is argued to have overlooked the distinct socio-economic challenges and justice issues confronting black men, potentially exacerbating divisions within the African American community. Moreover, this emphasis might have contributed to wider societal problems, such as the crack epidemic, by neglecting the specific hardships faced by black men who often found themselves marginalized by broader societal expectations. Critics argue that the policies during this period may have fostered distorted views of black masculinity, which in turn impacted community dynamics and social interactions in negative ways. Kevin Samuels, known for his relationship advice on social media before his passing, underscored the consequences of these perceptions, highlighting how they have influenced the social fabric of the black community.
Such critiques suggest that the Democratic Party’s policies during this era did not merely reflect a policy of benign neglect towards urban America’s crises but also struggled to effectively address the complex interplay of race, gender, and social justice within the African American community. This approach, by focusing on certain demographics at the expense of others, has deepened existing divides, contributing to a range of societal challenges that extend beyond the immediate political sphere.
Preview to Part 3
In Part 3, I will delve into the historical actions taken by certain elements within the United States government that had profound and destabilizing effects on African American communities. This exploration will shed light on documented instances where governmental operations significantly undermined the social and economic fabric of these communities. Specifically, we will examine how certain programs, under the guise of national security and law enforcement, conducted activities that not only disrupted civil rights movements but also contributed to the influx of illegal substances into predominantly black neighborhoods in the 1980s. This examination aims to understand the multifaceted impact of these actions on the African American community, highlighting the long-term consequences of such interventions on social cohesion, trust in government, and the exacerbation of already existing socio-economic challenges.
