Reagan and Race

David Brooks' bit of bilge in yesterday's N.Y. Times was about as dishonest an article as  I have ever read. What puts his piece over the top is not just the attempt to rewrite history, but also his smear of two of his colleagues, Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman, who have accurately written about the Republican party and race. Entitled "History and Calumny," it argues that any suggestion that Ronald Reagan was making a racist appeal in his use of the words "states rights" in his first speech after accepting the Republican nomination, is "calumny." The speech was made in Philadelphia, Miss, a town where three civil rights workers had been brutally murdered.

Brooks' piece is pure propaganda; its distance from reality can be measured in the incoherence of its arguments as well as in its distortion of the facts. In the first part of this post, I'll look at Reagan's history with race, and in the second will discuss Brooks' intent to distort.

Reagan used race as a divisive tool to advance his political carreer throughout his life.`

• He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• He opposed the Voting Rights act of 1965, and said that it humilated the South. As President, he fought against the renewal of the voting rights act.
• His 1966 election as Governor of California was propelled by his support of Proposition 14 - which overturned the Rumsford Fair Housing Act.(The Supreme Court later overturned Prop14) Martin Luther King "saw this as a backlash against civil rights." He "capitalized" on the riots in Watts in his campaign.
• In his 1966 campaign he said: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."
• While visiting Georgia during his campaign for President, he praised Jefferson Davis, and called him a "hero of mine."
• As President he fought against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday.
• 70% of African Americans considered Reagan a racist, Kenneth Clark commented that "throughout his term"... he "made whites comfortable with their prejudices."
• He alway supported the white, apartheid government of South Africa, vetoing a resolution passed by Congress asking for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison as well as vetoing a bill imposing sanctions on South Africa.
• Nobel Prize winning Bishop Desmond Tutu said of Reagan that "In my view, The Regan's administration support and collaboration with [the white government] is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian." He also said of Reagan "Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. He sits there like the great, big white chief of old."
• As President,  "In the area of housing, his appoinment of Sam Pierce as Secretary of HUD  left the federal housing department in a shambles. Reagan was so distanced from Blacks he even confused Pierce, his own appointee, for a Black mayor during a meeting.
• As President, he appointed William Bradford Reynolds to head up Civil Rights at Justice. It was he who "first took up the Bob Jones case, contesting the IRS's right to deny that religious school's tax exemption" because of its refusal to enroll blacks. (Reynolds lost this one too at the U.S. Supreme Court.)They opposed busing, affirmative action, etc etc
• "During his Presidency he fired members of the U.S. Commission on Civl Rights who criticized his civil rights policies...the judge who overturned the dismissal did so because "you can't fire a watchdog for biting."

There are many other examples of Reagan's views and actions on issues of race. I hope that the above are sufficient to make it clear that Brooks' claim that saying Reagan used race was a "slur" or a calumny is outrageous. It is fact.

Brooks of course could be ignorant of Reagan's history, and his inaccuracy an honest mistake.  Unfortunately his obvious attempts to deceive his reader and distort the truth prove that "honesty" had nothing to do with it.

In his op-ed Brooks first introduces the question of whether or not Reagan's speech at the Neshoba County Fair is indicative of his use of race.  He goes on with a tortured, inconclusive explanation of what brought Reagan to the county fair in the first place. Trying to indicate that Reagan wanted to appeal to blacks, he discusses of scheduling conflicts between the Fair and a meeting of the Urban League. It's as if Brooks is making an absurd argument:that if he tried to appeal to black voters, he couldn't possibly also have tried to attract racist whites. He also neglects to mention that Reagan had already rejected an invitation to speak to the NAACP.

He then provides a link to the speech, produced by someone who is clearly a Reagan partisan.  Listening to it only proves how deceptive Brooks is being:

• Brooks wrote that the "Fair was a major rallying spot in Mississippi.(Michael Dukakis would campaign there in 1988)." Speakers at the fair paint a distinctly different picture; one  called Reagan's attendance "unprecented." Another said that this was "The first time in our history that we have ever had a nominee for the President of the United States at the Fair."
• By quoting Reagan's statement that: "I know speaking to this crowd, I'm speaking to a crowd that is 90 percent Democrat", Brooks seems to be implying a hostile audience.  The audience responded to Reagan's statement by screaming that they were not Democrats. The "almost entirely white" crowd greeted him with "thunderous applauseand chants of 'We Want Reagan." (N.Y.T. Aug 3, 1980)
• Getting to the heart of the matter, Brooks wrote:"He spoke mostly about inflation and the economy, but in the middle of a section on schools, he said this: 'Programs like education and others should be turned back to the states and local communities with the tax sources to fund them. I believe in states' rights.'" Brooks "forgot" that Reagan also said "if he were elected, he would reorder priorities and 'restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them.'" And this is where Brooks is spectacularly dishonest. Hardly a throw away line, the proper role of the federal government was a big part of Reagan's speech.  The use of the words "states rights" had a very specific meaning at that time in the South, one which Reagan was unquestionably aware. The Deep South had never called the Civil War by what most Americans call it today - instead it was known as the "War to Restore States Rights." After Harry Truman integrated the U.S. Army, Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond bolted from the party, and ran for President in 1948 on an anti-integration platform in a third party - "The States Rights Party."   Brooks' implication that the phrase 'states' rights' had been used in connection with curriculum or some educational principle is absurd - it had only been used in matters of race. When used regarding education, it meant one thing: the right of states not to integrate their schools.
• Winding down, Brooks' writes that "The use of the phrase "states' rights didn't spark any reaction in the crowd." He does not tell the reader that the early on in the tape the listener is advised that the tape had been edited, and that "most of the background noise and chatter was edited out." The editor was apparently an amateur, who was a Reagan supporter. At other times in the tape when you would normally expect to hear a reaction from the crowd, like when the name of the upcoming band is announced, you hear nothing.
• Brooks does acknowledge that "It's callous, at least, to use the phrase "states rights: in any context in Philadelphia." In fact it is far beyond callous. If there had been some mistake or misunderstanding, Reagan had plenty of opportunities to explain or apologize. He never did.

Brooks closes by condemning the slur, "one of the most heinous charges imaginable", and those who made it, who "couldn't even take 10 minutes to look at the evidence." Any honest person who does listen to the tape, who looks at the evidence, can not deny Reagan's despicable use of race to advance his political agenda.

P.S. Congressman Trent Lott was instrumental in getting Reagan to speak at the Neshoba County Fair. Years later, Senator Lott lost his leadership position in the Senate, when he told Strom Thurmond that he wished he had won the Presidency back in '48)

(memeorandum) 

(revised slightly Nov 11)

Comments

[Rick]

I will print this and hang it next to your essay on Carter’s anti-Semitism. And, the really neat thing about the Carter essay is that you did not have to go back many decades and quote anti Reaganites. You were just able to use his contemporaneous words and actions. Cool! And, you did not have to grasp at things such as conservatives believe in the 10th amendment and sheepishly mislabel it as racism. Nor, did you have to misrepresent opposition to bills for the folly attached to them as racism. Nor, did you have to label opposition to another foolish federal holiday as racism. Oh, and 82% of blacks consider all Republicans to be racist, so how do you explain Reagan’s popularity among minorities? No, you didn’t have to reach and stretch and misinterpret at all. And, I really liked the way you drew a straight line from the fall of eastern block communism as we know it to Reagan, and the straight line from the rise of Islamo Fascism to a whimpering figure in the oval office with elbows on desk and forehead in palms in 1979.

There is not a racist nor liar nor torturer behind every door and the misuse and overuse of these and other idly tossed about terms, provides cover for the real racists and liars and torturers of this planet.

Toss this about with your Sunday salad. (Just an attempt at dramatic emphasis) The left has decided to label this President as a liar. Though, when pressed for specifics, one discovers that they have simply decided to call disagreement lying. So, when Ahmajinadad is told that he must give up his pursuit of nuclear arms, (as did Ghadaffi) he foolishly misreads and misinterprets the threats as lies. Why? The American left has him convinced. So, when the birds fly, the fingerprints of the left will be unwittingly on all the buttons. If the extraordinarily foolish Kucinich were really interested in preventing war with Iran, he would be threatening to strike them instead of attempting to introduce legislation to impeach the Vice President which only fuels Ahmajinadad’s insanity and further convinces him that the left is on his side. But we both know that Kucinich is not interested in preventing war with Iran. He is interested in elevating his pathetic political image which is treachery of the worst kind.

But, alas, I live with the ever fading hope that the left is not really on the side of our enemies. It is really hard to come to terms with you know. Anti Americanism is far more pungent amongst the elite of Davis and Healdsburg and Provincetown than it is amongst the Wazirs and Beluchs.

How do I drift so far in only 3 or 4 paragraphs? No matter, I’ll just tack back to starboard for a spell.

A beautiful pot roast today surrounded by carrots and baby redskin potatoes. (Could Dan Quail be partially right after all these years?) Bring Mesdames by and I will open a Bordeaux.

Cheers to you both. Hope all goes well.

[Rick]

And, a very small point. Trent Lott did not tell Strom Thurmond that he wished he had won the Presidency back in 1948. I watched the whole thing. Wouldn't like to see you continue forward with misperceptions

[bbbustard]

"we wouldn't of had all these problems" if you had been elected was what Lott said to Thurmond. Color me crazy, but most people would understand avoidance of problems as a good thing, as something one would wish for. If you have information that Sen Lott has a long, secret history of masochism, I'll apologize.

[bbbustard]

More importantly and interestingly, I never called Reagan a racist in my post. Although most white men born when he was were racists, especially ones who left the Democratic Party in the very early '60s, I did not presume to look into his heart.
I did look at his behavior. He used race to gain power. What I don't understand is the hysterical need to rewrite history.There was a "Southern Strategy." FDR was either a cynical coward, or a political realist in his handling of race - but he sure wasn't admirable.
Why do you think that you are unable to see some nuance, that most Presidents, like most people, are not purely good or purely evil?
I guess it's too cold to grill outside today?

[bbbustard]

"we wouldn't of had all these problems" if you had been elected was what Lott said to Thurmond. Color me crazy, but most people would understand avoidance of problems as a good thing, as something one would wish for. If you have information that Sen Lott has a long, secret history of masochism, I'll apologize.

[Rick]

Yes, that is a correct version of Lott's words. Lott was struggling to say something kind and complimentary to an old man on his 100th birthday. And, all the silliness over the remarks were pure machinations and serve to make my point more precisely than I ever could. A racist is one who believes his race is superior to another's. If you look up the definition of the word today, you will read secondary and tertiary meanings that are recent additions and reflect the bastardization of the word that has occurred through misuse. Lott's remarks were not racist. Imus' remarks were not racist. Dog's remarks were not racist. Racism is in the heart and mind and misusing the term (and other terms) give cover to real racism which is profoundly evil. If you know of anyone who has taken the oath of the Ku Klux Klan, they have declared themselves to be racist. That oath is racist and evil and Lott's remarks were nothing of the kind.

All Presidents are flawed. If you are able to interpret Lott's words as a wish, I am able to interpret your Regan post as an inference. And, I'm guessing you probably won't be doing that Carter post, eh?

Far to cold to be cooking outside. I will fire it up though any time I have a nice day. I grilled a 27 pound turkey outside last year for Thanksgiving, although with the lid down and using indirect heat, that really isn't quite traditional grilling.

[Tod]

Rick you seem to be saying there's a difference between the insinuation of racism and the outright oath too it, yet its the former that does the most damage in the long run. It's the KKK and the Nazis that are easy to point out and avoid, but what you can't stop is the, oh he was just trying to be nice to a old man on his birthday. That and the apologist position that "all President's are flawed" doesn't mean that Reagan's use of racism should be just lumped into a general lump of bad behaviour by all the Presidents. It should be condemned for what it was, as racist. And condemning doesn't mean going nuts about it, it just means being aware of it and keeping yourself on guard against it.

[bbbustard]

Thanks to you both for the comments. I've got to say that Tod is making the better arguments, In My Humble Opinion,

[Blake Emerson]

For conservatives such as Brooks, who were won over to conservatism with the inspirational presidency of Ronald Reagan, the suggestion that his candidacy and presidency were deeply racist is impossible to accept. Unable to acknowledge their political savior as a peddler of racial slurs, Republican converts must claim he is the victim of interpretive dishonesty and liberal propaganda. Brooks' righteous indignation is striking for its similarity to the tone of left identity politics, which places the discussion certain sacred, aspects of cultural, racial, or gender identity off the table for discussion... read on at: http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2007/11/brooks-and-krugman-on-reagan.html