From the beginning, the term “law and order” had racist undertones that attracted white Southerners who did not like seeing the progression of black civil rights (Miller 2019). “The politicized meaning of law and order, which has dominated the crime control debate as well as policymaking since the 1960s and 1970s, is inextricably bound to the notion of getting tougher on offenders; the use of custody is its primary measure” (Hinds 2006; 204).

Some of the first uses of “law and order” were in Texas in the late 60s under Police Chief Wilkins. He used the changing police system to target minorities by saying the community “coddles” criminals (Bedingfield 2019). He saw this as an opportunity to justify targeting the black community and put a larger number of black people in jail for low-level crimes. It’s been widely accepted that the use of “law and order” in both Texas and Arizona helped to skyrocket the idea to national prominence and helped it to become a national issue (Bedingfield 2019). The federal government wanted Texas to change its system so that they did not put a disproportionate amount of black and brown people in jail. (Campbell 2011). Texas had a large effect on the federal system, causing it to follow more of a “law and order” system.

The second big surge in “law and order” policies came out of the 80s with the War on Drugs under the Reagan administration. It focused on policing public order at the front-end of the criminal justice system and then letting the back-end deal with it in whichever way they deem necessary (Hinds 2006). This means putting more people into the system based on crimes that they may not have committed but that end up being decided by the back-end of the system. Another important aspect of the growth of “Law and Order” happened in the 90s. This is when President Clinton turned the Democratic party towards crime. He started to bring it under the realm of the Democratic party rather than leaving it to the Republicans and allowing them to keep it as their issue. In the past, Republicans have been known to push for issues related to big government, civil, and social order, including crime and justice (Holian 2004). President Clinton started to show more of a liking to crime and making it a Democratic issue, passing the 1994 Crime Bill, which scholars acknowledge as one of the reasons that there is a disproportionate amount of black men in jail. “Until Clinton came along, Republicans enjoyed immense credibility with the public given the party’s willingness to mete out harsh punishment for convicted criminals” (Holian 2004; 116). Clinton was able to successfully take the policy of being harsh on criminals away from the Republicans and show it was something Democrats were willing to do as well. This push for more “controlling of crime” helped to continue the policies and language of “law and order” over several decades.

Another issue that politicians use has been “states rights” calling for the states to be in charge of more of the policies, essentially pushing a stronger system of federalism. This idea is not as widely talked about in the literature but there were some studies focus on Native American tribes and their relationship with the federal government. Following the passage of the New Deal, there was a new system of federalism that came about and helped to set up more rights for local entities, this included Native American tribes (Tani 2015). Through this Native American tribes were given more autonomy over the laws within their reservation. At the same time though it gave states more leeway in deciding laws specifically for their state, helping to increase racist policies especially in conservative states. 

The last important piece to mention is the change in voting rights over time. It has taken a while but in theory, almost all citizens of the United States can vote in an election. While that is what should be happening in practice it is not. There are a lot of states, mainly controlled by Republicans in particular, that specifically are pushing to make sure minorities are not able to vote. “The twenty-first century Republican Party, like the southern Democratic Party from Reconstruction until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, has sought to overcome the unpopularity of its policies with a strategy of ensuring that its opponents are unable to vote” (Lachmann 2019; 19). The idea that states can come up with their election laws is part of the reason why election interference is widespread but different in each state. The goal of passing restrictive voting laws is strategic (while also being racist) making sure that people who typically vote for the Democrats, mainly minorities. This helps to make sure margins are narrow and can influence who wins elections, in the 21st century this has been Republicans (Lachmann 2019). This is important because it is another way that groups can be racist without it being explicitly racist.

The literature that exists on presidential rhetoric focuses a lot on the State of the Union and how presidents can use their rhetoric to gain support. I find it important to make sure that there is an interdisciplinary view on the rhetoric and to look at it in several different forums. The inaugural address is one of the first speeches a president gives to represent the state of the nation. Looking at how there are other ways presidents can talk about citizens and the state of the nation is extremely important. There have been few pieces that have looked at race in these bigger speeches, like the State of the Union and inaugural speeches.