"Personal Views"

This seems like a weird parenthesis to put in an op-ed about Reagan's record on race:

(Mr. Reagan was understandably anathema in the black community not because of his personal views but because of his consistent opposition to federal civil rights legislation, most notably the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.)

Hitler is anathema in the Jewish community not because of his personal views, but because of his consistent advocacy of the eradication of Europe's Jewish population, most notably during the landmark Holocaust of the early 1940s. There's something wrong there, eh? Reagan was a politician. His political views are what matters. And during the crucial civil rights fights of the mid-1960s, Reagan stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the forces of white supremacy. How important Reagan's background as an anti-civil rights activist was to his 1980 election win seems debatable — I've previously noted that it wasn't a close election and the objective facts about the late 1970s would have made it extremely difficult for Carter to win re-election under any circumstances — but Reagan's record is his record, and his views about political issues are personal views, whether or not some of his best friends were black.

Comments

Does anyone understand the concepts of states rights, and personal freedom including freedom of association?

The "civil rights" movements did a lot of damage to these concepts. Now, you may think it was worth it, but don't pretend there was no trade off - that nothing was lost or sacrificed.

Posted by daveg | November 18, 2007 12:02 PM

Also, if 1980 didn't turn out to be that close, that suggests that he didn't have to appeal to Southern racism, yet he did it anyway.

Posted by Reality Man | November 18, 2007 12:02 PM

"Does anyone understand the concepts of states rights, and personal freedom including freedom of association?"

So being able to fire black people for being black is freedom? Making sure black people in your state can't vote is a form of freedom? What about black people's freedom? Oh right, blacks aren't real Americans, so they don't count.

Posted by Reality Man | November 18, 2007 12:05 PM

Notice that Lou Canon makes no attempt to address the other entries in the long list of statements and actions of Reagan that was compiled by Krugman to show convincingly that the Mississipi speech was at par with Reagan's racist persona.

Posted by gregor | November 18, 2007 12:07 PM

Now, you may think it was worth it, but don't pretend there was no trade off - that nothing was lost or sacrificed.

Hey DaveG- tell us, please, what exactly was "lost or sacrificed" as a result of the civil rights movement.

Posted by James Gary | November 18, 2007 12:08 PM

in terms of the 1980 election, two points: a.) were there no john anderson in the race, the popular vote would have been quite close, although reagan still would have won; b.) the race only "broke" for reagan at the very end.

which isn't to say that the actual number of votes that reagan influenced by his positions on civil rights were all that relevant to the outcome, so i agree with your broader point.

as for the DaveG's of the world, i too want to know about the horrible imposition on DaveG's freedom of association and in what specific ways real state's rights - not a perpetuation of the treason of the confederacy under the guise of state's rights - were harmed.

should be a fascinating argument.

Posted by howard | November 18, 2007 12:16 PM

All you have to do is Google "Lee Atwater" and "states rights" to see what Reagan would have been saying in 1954.

Posted by calipygian | November 18, 2007 12:24 PM

I'm constantly amazed by the inability to understand (or perhaps the mendacity required to pretend not to understand) the distinction between bigotry and racism. Bigotry is disliking (or something stronger) a group of people because of some difference (race, etc.); racism is the use or attempted use of political power to the advantage of one's own race and/or the detriment of a different race. Reagan's policies and political actions were racist, regardless of whether or not he was a bigot.

Posted by j.e.b. | November 18, 2007 12:32 PM

Same old Lou.

The parenthetical comment is typical of Lou Cannon as a smoother and softener of Reagan's legacy (a canonizer enabler of the first degree). Cannon gained fame and fortune in the 1980s as a political reporter covering Reagan for the L.A. Times in the 1980s and making frequent television appearances. As the home state reporter who supposedly knew Reagan best, Cannon on television softened Reagan's image for moderates and liberals while earning scoops for his newspaper from the Administration and later publishing a largely favorable biography -- a case of access journalism that many reporters have emulated since then.

Lou Cannon tries to defend Reagan (and support David Brooks) without really confronting the arguments of Krugman and Herbert that Reagan made deliberate appeals to racists as part of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy.

Of course, Cannon does not get to the substance of the argument that Reagan and his political advisers sought to exploit issues of race to advance his and the Republican Party's electoral fortunes in the South. Instead, he argues 1)Reagan personally was not a bigot and 2) the decision to begin his campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi was not effective politically. None of this negates the broader point that Reagan made tactical appeals to bigots as part of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy. Whatever his personal beliefs and whether it was politically effective or not, the decision to begin Reagan's Presidential campaign in a place where three civil rights workers had been murdered with an appeal to "states' rights" was undoubtedly part of this.

At the time, virtually every politically aware adult knew exactly what Reagan and his advisers were trying to do in starting his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It may, as Canon indicates, have been a political mistake, but there was no doubt at the time about its intentions.

Posted by Ben Brackley | November 18, 2007 12:35 PM

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought Lou Cannon's NYT Op-Ed piece about Ronald Reagan was a bit strange - and more than a little self-contradictory.

On the one hand, Cannon goes on and on about how "personally" non-racist Reagan was - but even so, feels obligated to add the "parenthetical" Matt cites about his fervent opposition to civil-rights legislation (a matter of record).

Also, if Reagan's 1980 Neshoba speech should be considered a "stumble" and a "blunder" (why? because he was criticized for it?) it's wasn't, in the end, much of one: since Reagan DID win the election - and cemented Republican popularity in the South to the present day.

I think Paul Krugman's jab at the overblown Reagan legend may have drawn more blood than he intended: it just makes it more obvious that contemporary conservatives/Republicans still have a huge investment in the hyped-up legend of Saint Ronald the Infallible, the Fearless Hero President; and that they still can't (or won't) deal with the Reagan Era with ANY sort of objectivity.

Maybe we can simply call it "RDS"?

Posted by Jay C | November 18, 2007 12:49 PM

Oh shit, this post was about an op-ed from Lou Cannon? You mean, the guy who wrote a crapalicious book about the '92 Watts riots in which he couldn't get himself to admit how racist LA's history has always been? You can read that book and come away wondering if the riots were over flavors of ice cream or something, it's that detached from reality. Daryl Gates, instead of correctly being portrayed as a ruthless gangster with a uniform, comes across looking like a befuddled technocrat. Oh yeah, that Lou Cannon.

Posted by burritoboy | November 18, 2007 12:59 PM

Godwin's Law, MY.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | November 18, 2007 1:03 PM

As a former reporter, Cannon can't quite ignore Reagan's actual political record on race, but putting it in a parenthetical is just such a perfect representation of Cannon's coverage of Reagan throughout Cannon's career. On television, he wouldn't totally ignore criticism of Reagan, but he would almost always try to soften it and make Reagan appear in a better light.

Posted by Ben Brackley | November 18, 2007 1:07 PM

So there are no legitimate reasons to oppose civil rights legislation? These laws only produced benefits with no unintended consequences whatsoever? Or maybe Reagan believed that the basic rights protected by the constitution were sufficient and opposed government intervention in private conduct, a philosophy that inspired Americans of every race and class.

Posted by Al | November 18, 2007 1:15 PM

Al -

Because the those rights protected by the constitution were protected SOOOOOOOOO well in the Jim Crow South.

Posted by calipygian | November 18, 2007 1:24 PM

Hey DaveG- tell us, please, what exactly was "lost or sacrificed" as a result of the civil rights movement.

He lost the right to drink out of a whites only waterfountain and eat in a whites only diner, silly.

Posted by calipygian | November 18, 2007 1:29 PM

Reagan was not very bigoted when he was still a Democrat and a liberal hollywood actor. He would extend personal courtesies to blacks but never would battle the institutionalized racism typical of the era.

When he became a conservative however he embraced both the rhetoric of bigots and the policies of racists which were the heart and sould of conservatism at the time. He was not a pricipaled man, he adapted those that could further his career.

Posted by ken | November 18, 2007 1:37 PM

"racism is the use or attempted use of political power to the advantage of one's own race and/or the detriment of a different race."

By that measure, liberals are more racist than the KKK. Compare, for example, black illegitimacy and crime rates over the last 40 years.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 1:39 PM

Bob Hebert is a low-IQ fossil who still thinks its 1963, America is Selma, and nothing has changed. Considering the stellar range of choices the NYTimes had in selecting their designated "House Negro" - from blacks on the Left, in the middle, on the right - selecting a mediocre talent like Hebert is a slap on the whole spectrum of truly talented black columnists.

Krugman has become a joke as Pinch Sulzberger's ideological butt boy pushing Pinch's cause du jour, and he serves this master as slavishly as he did his old masters at Enron.

As for Reagan, its kind of silly to accuse everyone who believed as he did about states rights, the failure of Big Government to help most blacks though they spent a few trillion on a panopoly of new entitlements and court mandates - as racist. As silly as broad-brush smearing all those who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists as traitors, though terrorists sympathizers DO join in opposing SIGINT just as some Southern racists joined middle class steelworkers in PA and some Jews in NYC seeking lower taxes as equally supportive of Reagan.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 18, 2007 1:48 PM

By that measure, liberals are more racist than the KKK. Compare, for example, black illegitimacy and crime rates over the last 40 years.

I think it's worse than mendacity or stupidity, it's 1984 style crimestop.

I had to read that four times to even comprehend what the point was.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 18, 2007 2:14 PM

chris ford is, of course, a torture-lover and asswipe of the first order, but we expect a little better of al (at least i do).

and so, no, al, there was not a single legitimate reason to oppose the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act: not one. there were plenty of phony reasons offered up at the time, though.

Posted by howard | November 18, 2007 3:01 PM

More spittle-flecked bafflegab from Chris Ford.

Why does MY believe in affirmative action for trolls?

Posted by Joel | November 18, 2007 3:03 PM

Ed,

Your poor reading comprehension and typical left-wing inability to make an argument without juvenile name-calling, are your problem.

Liberal "thought" -- "you're a racist!", "you're like Hitler!", "you're a big mean poopy-head!"

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 3:06 PM

"Your poor reading comprehension and typical left-wing inability to make an argument without juvenile name-calling, are your problem."

Uh, no. There is no logical connection between liberalism, black illegitimacy and crime rates. None.

Unless you are a wingnut who doesn't believe in personal responsibility.

Posted by Joel | November 18, 2007 3:11 PM

"There is no logical connection between liberalism, black illegitimacy and crime rates."

There's a clear and direct connection.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 3:43 PM

There's a clear and direct connection.

Quite an argument.

Posted by Dan | November 18, 2007 3:52 PM

Reagan had no time to engage in any racist or bigoted policies or campaigning.

How could he, when he was so busy carving the Grand Canyon with his tears, or weaving dinosaur bones out of dust to stick underground, or leading the Jews out of Egypt, and such?

Posted by El_Cid | November 18, 2007 4:03 PM

There's a clear and direct connection.

Only in your tiny mind. Along with the U.N.'s black helicopters and the Trilateral Commission.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | November 18, 2007 4:22 PM

hi,

my name is ronald w. reagan.
even though i love black folks, and some of my best friends are black, i just don't believe the laws of our great country should be changed to address the systemic and long-entrenched problems that those poor old darkies face and struggle with and complain about each and every day.
i mean, even though we're living in an age where black people, by law, cannot vote in certain states because of unfair laws that harken back to jim crow, even though black people cannot buy houses in certain areas because of racist, restrictive covenants in deeds and other racist realities, even though a hungry black man cannot sit at a lunch counter in many cities without risking a necktie party on his behalf and even though apartheid is real and very prevalent throughout large portions of our country, i just don't believe that the law should address those problems and issues, and i'll use all of my power as governor of california and all of my power as a political player to make certain that the laws that uphold those racist policies stay in place.
but, you know, i'm really not a racist.
and i really do like black people.
its just political, you see.
and i hope you'll make me your next governor of california.
thanks.

ronald w. reagan

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Has someone already commented on Cannon's assertion that Reagan's decision to speak at the Neshoba county fair wasn't at all prompted by racism - merely by superstition? Cannon doesn't add that Reagan would be superstitious again at Bitburg.

Posted by Independent | November 18, 2007 4:45 PM

Jeez, how many posts is this now about two words in a speech 27 years ago? A million?

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 18, 2007 4:58 PM

Dan, I provided as much detail as Joel did.

"Only in your tiny mind. Along with the U.N.'s black helicopters and the Trilateral Commission."

Quite an argument. Thanks for demonstrating my point about liberals and name-calling.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 5:01 PM

ProAmericaAntiLeft, you've got us there. We're horrible people, liberals, we do nothing but name calling and worse.

You've no excuse wasting your time here among us, no matter how many times you kindly offer us your noble arguments about how liberalism hurt black people, it just never sinks in. Maybe you deserve better.

Find a conservative blog where thought and evidence are raised to the highest degrees of appreciation.

Posted by El_Cid | November 18, 2007 5:23 PM

golly, i agree with steve sailer. you folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.
those two little words really don't mean much of anything. i just said 'em because they told me to say 'em. i didn't know anything about any murders of civil rights workers or segregation or anything like that.
they just told me to say "states rights" and i said those two little words.
you know, i really wasn't a racist or bigot in real life.
i just played one on the political stage.
take care.

ronald w. reagan

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 5:59 PM

So there are no legitimate reasons to oppose civil rights legislation? These laws only produced benefits with no unintended consequences whatsoever? Or maybe Reagan believed that the basic rights protected by the constitution were sufficient and opposed government intervention in private conduct, a philosophy that inspired Americans of every race and class.

Hey, fake Al is back!

Posted by Al | November 18, 2007 6:37 PM

"Dan, I provided as much detail as Joel did."

Well, since the burden of proof is on you for making the connection, you make my point nicely.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | November 18, 2007 7:13 PM

So, Bobo Brooks is pwn3d, he places a call, and the NYT gets served up an op-ed that it goes ahead and prints?

Oh, the wonders of American journalism. Is Bobo going to get his dad to beat up Paul Krugman next?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 18, 2007 7:23 PM

I will say that Reagan was obviously incorrect on the merits of the issue. That does not ipso facto make him a racist or bigoted, any more than it ipso facto makes Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., or William Fulbright racist or bigoted.

And saying "Reagan stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the forces of white supremacy" is partuclarly dumb - it is akin to saying that Matthew is "standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the forces of al Qaeda" because he wants the US to leave Iraq.

Posted by Al | November 18, 2007 7:28 PM

Matt, I don't know why you insist on beating this dead horse. Reagan's is in his grave, the 80s are history and noen of this particularly matters.
Moreover I disgaree with you on one thing: a political figure's policies and public views may well differ from her personal opinions. LBJ was a dyed-in-the-wool SOB, but he did a lot of good as prersident. Barry Goldwater (by all accounts) was profoundly un-racist in his personal behavior but was captive of an ideology which believed that the federal government had no authority or right to intervene in civil rights matter.
And here's where I have a major bone to pick with both the Left and the Right: for some reason it's no longer enough to say of one's opponents "You are wrong". Instead one must be able to say "You are evil". For my part I can say of Reagan, Goldwater, They were wrong. I see no point in making windows into their souls, and at this remove I lack confidence in my psychic powers to read the minds of the dead.

Posted by Jonf | November 18, 2007 7:34 PM

Ooh, Joel called me a troll. That'll show how smart he is! You forgot to compare me to Hitler though, your liberal checklist is still incomplete. *L*

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 8:41 PM

The planted axiom in this discussion is that there's something morally wrong about racism. OK, killing Jews might be going a bit far, but when we have articles like this in the MSM effectively endorsing the racist thesis, then the writing's clearly on the wall.

Posted by Freshman | November 18, 2007 8:45 PM

I trust that Matt's now going to go after Saletan with the same vigour he's expended on a dead man. A campaign to have him sacked is the absolute minimum to be expected.

Posted by Freshman | November 18, 2007 8:53 PM

jonf,

none of this would particularly matter if rightwingers were not so intent on rewriting history in order to further their political ends.
after reagan left office people said the same thing about iran/contra and all of the loose strings and scandals in his administration.
just leave the old guy alone, everyone said. he's harmless.
twenty years later an entire mythological history has been constructed around reagan because people simply agreed that it was not particularly important to set the historical record straight.
reagan did pander to racists.
reagan did sell arms to iranians.
reagan did preside over one of the largest economic debacles in this country's history when he instituted his supply-side tax cuts.
reagan did break the law.
those truths need to be repeated so that rightwingers cannot construct a myth that they can use to continue reagan's destructive policies.
now, if rightwingers would accept the truth about reagan's history, everyone can then agree that none of this particularly matters.
however, as long as they continue to indulge in soviet-style history revision, then setting the record straight always matters.

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 8:55 PM

Economic debacle? Reagan launched an economic boom that has lasted mostly uninterrupted to this day. It is the left that is trying to demonize one of America's greatest presidents with slanderous myths.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 9:01 PM

Anti-globalizers make the same mistake. What's important to them is not the eradication of poverty. Rather, it is the propaganda value they gain from linking poverty to the spreading market economy. But this puts them on the wrong side of all evidence, of reality, of history. Life expectancy in Third World countries has more than doubled during the free-market dominated second half of the twentieth century. In India, food production has grown by a factor of ten, leading to the elimination of massive famines. In Latin America, per capita income doubled between 1950 and 1985. Over the past 50 years, Latin America on the whole has experienced an annual growth of 5 percent. No European country can boast an equivalent rate. These figures show to what an extent the mantras about ever-increasing poverty spring from ignorance or simple dishonesty. Where poverty continues to exist today it is almost wholly due to ruinously inefficient public sectors. [...]

Between 1960 and 2000, Africa received four times as much funding and aid per capita as Latin America or Asia. How was it that these last two continents took off, and not Africa? By practicing capitalism and establishing world trade. But it is pointless to set forth facts like these to anti-globalizers; they simply howl in indignation. In spreading the lie that globalization impoverishes the most needy, the protestors simply act upon their twin enthusiasms: anti-American and anti-capitalism. Their floating mass of some hundreds of thousands of demonstrators is their compensation for the frustration of having seen all the socialisms and all the revolutions fail. At a time when they have no positive alternative, yelling slogans and trashing cities and blocking international gatherings provide them with the illusion of moral action.

Link

Posted by Kemoterapy | November 18, 2007 9:16 PM

see?
myths.
have reagan's apologists ever heard of record deficits? deficits that bill clinton was responsible enough to deal with and turn into surpluses.
have reagan's apologists thought about the beginning of the destruction of the middle class with economic policies that were designed to benefit the rich?
proamericaantileft illustrates exactly what i am talking about.

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 9:20 PM

Matt, you you really think that Hitler comparisons would convince anyone is not an idiot, and why would want idiots on your side? (Answer: Because it's the best you can get.)

I've got a theory as to why liberals (or progressives, whatever) love Hitler comparisons (besides your generally rabid and unthinking nature): You know so little about history, that Hitler is almost always the only historical example you twits can think up. Thus, when there's a political dispute over the funding level of S-CHIP, why, that's just like Hitler wanting to eliminate disfavored minorities!

No need to vote this November, OK libs? Do your country a favor. Much better to stay home and watch The View or something.

Posted by Brian | November 18, 2007 9:26 PM

Hmmm, a liberal complaining about budget deficits? Surely some mistake. Does the kid even understand what economic cycles are?

Posted by Les | November 18, 2007 9:27 PM

"deficits that bill clinton was responsible enough to deal with and turn into surpluses."

That is a myth. The Republican congress under Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. Clinton first argued the Republican plans were irresponsible, then reluctantly went along with them.

"Destruction of the middle class"? That's just demented nonsense.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 9:31 PM

lol!!!
economic cycles!!!!
i lived through the '80's and that explanation/excuse didn't work in real time.
it certainly doesn't fly now.

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 9:31 PM

And since when do liberals care about the middle class (apart from their family members, that is)? Aren't the working class good enough for you, now? Maybe it's because if you genuinely cared about the welfare of lower income Americans, you'd have to consider opposing mass immigration, both legal and illegal.

Posted by Bernard Cobiteau II | November 18, 2007 9:35 PM

fact:
when bill clinton came to office there was a huge deficit. when he instituted his deficit reduction package in '93, he did it over strong republican objections because, among other things, it contained a small tax hike on a very small percentage of americans.
fact:
not a single republican voted for the package.
clinton was crucified by republicans.
when clinton left office, he had balanced the budget and left a surplus.
the rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 9:39 PM

"Clinton first argued the Republican plans were irresponsible, then reluctantly went along with them."

Kinda like how Reagan cut taxes and then turned around and raised them?

""Destruction of the middle class"? That's just demented nonsense."

Ooh, PAAL called someone "demented." That'll show how smart he is! You forgot to compare us to Stalin though, your wingnut checklist is still incomplete.

Heh.

Posted by Joel | November 18, 2007 9:39 PM

bernard,

remember when your mom said not to assume things because when you do you make an...
well, you know the saying.
in fact, i am strongly against "mass immigration" and believe that it is a huge problem that the feds must get a handle on.

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 9:43 PM

"when clinton left office, he had balanced the budget and left a surplus."

No, you got it wrong again, that was Newt Gingrich.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 10:11 PM

Joel, I didn't call anyone demented. I called his assertion demented. Your reading skills obviously need some serious work.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 18, 2007 10:14 PM

oh, of course!
i forgot! newt gingrich was the president!
he's the guy who should have gotten all of the credit and/or blame for whatever happened from '93-2001.
geez, how could i ever forget president gingrich!

Posted by frankie d | November 18, 2007 10:16 PM

Clinton raised taxes and we had the longest economic expansion in American history.

You can't take that away from him.

Posted by ken | November 18, 2007 10:17 PM

"That does not ipso facto make him a racist or bigoted, any more than it ipso facto makes Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., or William Fulbright racist or bigoted."

I don't know much about the elder Gore, but Byrd definitely was a racist when he voted against the Voting and Civil Rights Acts. He just now claims he made a mistake and is no longer racist. Fulbright had a bit of a history with segregation. So why wouldn't this make Reagan a racist, at least policy-wse, as well?

Posted by Reality Man | November 18, 2007 10:47 PM

Liberals are the reason I can only get off while watching my "Oz" DVDs.

Posted by ProAmericaAntiLeft | November 19, 2007 2:10 AM

Look, you can scream all you want, but schools and communities based around religion or race, and schools based on those things plus sex are normal and highly desired by most people. We lost that freedom with much of the civil rights era. Also, people lost the right to run their business they way they see fit.

There is a reason why people self-segregate in this country despite the best efforts of you totalitarian equalizers. They like it.

And communities that are diverse are less supportive - read "bowling alone," for example.

And almost everything you bash here is done in countries like Israel, so you either think Israel is a "Nazi" regime, or the latest manifestation of apartheid, or you are being inconsistent.

Posted by daveg | November 19, 2007 4:14 AM

Making sure black people in your state can't vote is a form of freedom?

BTW, this is definitely not OK. And to say Reagan supported this is to lie.

Posted by daveg | November 19, 2007 4:17 AM

"Joel, I didn't call anyone demented. I called his assertion demented. Your reading skills obviously need some serious work."

LOL!

PAAL, I didn't call you a troll. I said this blog needed smarter trolls. Your reading skills obviously need some serious work.

Your political history skills obviously need serious work, too, if you really believe the Newt Gingrich engineered the reversal of the Reagan-Bush deficits when Clinton was president.

"And to say Reagan supported this is to lie."

To say Reagan supported politicians who made black voting difficult is true. To say that supporting a politician is to endorse their actions is true. Thus, to say that Reagan supported making black voting difficult is true. To deny this is a lie.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | November 19, 2007 6:24 AM

Reagan's legacy (taken up by George Bush snr.)was to cleverly discredit liberal Keynesian economics by running such huge deficits that he forced the Democrats to act as fiscal conservatives. Unfortuantely, Bush Jnr. and the neo-cons who hijacked the Republicans are traditional liberals.

Now, returning to Saletan's article in which he practically endorses race realism. Coming on the back of Bob Putnam's confirmation that diversity leads to civil decay, how can it be denied that white nationalists have basically been correct all along? Aren't those two planks, the essential core of their position?

Interesting times, indeed.

Posted by Ricky | November 19, 2007 6:49 AM

Clinton raised taxes and we had the longest economic expansion in American history.

So the stable growth and low inflation period of the world economy during the 1990s was down to Clinton's forced decision to raise taxes?!

Out of the mouths of babes....

Posted by Kismet | November 19, 2007 6:59 AM

Krugman continues on the larger subject.

Republicans and Race
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 19, 2007

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of commentaries about Ronald Reagan’s legacy, specifically about whether he exploited the white backlash against the civil rights movement.

The controversy unfortunately obscures the larger point, which should be undeniable: the central role of this backlash in the rise of the modern conservative movement.

The centrality of race — and, in particular, of the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support of Democrats to overwhelming support of Republicans — is obvious from voting data.

For example, everyone knows that white men have turned away from the Democrats over God, guns, national security and so on. But what everyone knows isn’t true once you exclude the South from the picture. As the political scientist Larry Bartels points out, in the 1952 presidential election 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic; in 2004, that figure was virtually unchanged, at 39 percent.

More than 40 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, which Reagan described in 1980 as “humiliating to the South.” Yet Southern white voting behavior remains distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year’s House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.

The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.

And Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial polarization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Follow link for full text. Don't understand why the blog is rejected an embedded link ("no follow no follow") but okay.

Posted by El Cid | November 19, 2007 8:16 AM

"I've got a theory as to why liberals (or progressives, whatever) love Hitler comparisons (besides your generally rabid and unthinking nature): You know so little about history, that Hitler is almost always the only historical example you twits can think up. Thus, when there's a political dispute over the funding level of S-CHIP, why, that's just like Hitler wanting to eliminate disfavored minorities!

No need to vote this November, OK libs? Do your country a favor. Much better to stay home and watch The View or something.

Posted by Brian | November 18, 2007 9:26 PM"

Perhaps you should talk to Norman Podheretz or any neocon. You obviously missed the point of the analogy. And daveg, when you publicly oppose the Voting Rights Act, you are opposing the rights of Southern blacks to vote. Take some fucking responsibility for your hero or toss him as your hero. I attacked Fulbright and Byrd on this thread, but I guess Saint Ronnie could fly out of Ronald Reagan International Ronald Reagan Air Reagan Port on magical wings and pixie dust.

"Look, you can scream all you want, but schools and communities based around religion or race, and schools based on those things plus sex are normal and highly desired by most people. We lost that freedom with much of the civil rights era. Also, people lost the right to run their business they way they see fit."

Actually it was white people who made the laws behind segregation, not black people. When black students tried to get accepted to white universities, they weren't segregating themselves. It was white people who used segregated housing to force urban blacks into ghettos. It was white people ran school board who started privatizing their local public schools down South so that they could make sure black people couldn't attend. Segregation was not the natural order of things. It was a system in which certain political elites from the economically and politically dominant group, white people, made the rules in which black people had to live, which included segregation. A lot of partisans in the South of white suprematism were rather open about the parallels between their state-level system and South African federal-level apartheid. It was black people in the South who were the force behind integration (a part of the American dream and ethos) and it was white people who wanted to maintain segregation. If people really act the way you say they do, blacks in South Africa would never have had a problem with apartheid or voted for Mandela (and I wouldn't even exist). Basically your post is saying "what's the matter with apartheid?" In conclusion, you are human pond scum.

Posted by Reality Man | November 19, 2007 8:46 AM

The reason this has become an issue is that the Republicans intend to run on a sainted Reagan against the immoral Clinton in 2008.

Reagan was a nasty man.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 19, 2007 8:52 AM

I think it has become an issue of sensitivity partly because Bush Jr. really was the 2nd incarnation of Reaganism for right wingers, and their possession of absolute power for 4 years and their use of the same Reaganite dreck as staff, finally managed to sour the American public of the fantasy land of Reaganism.

Before Bush Jr., the Reaganites could always claim that their *real* revolution was never fully carried out, given Reagan had a Democratic Congress, and if only they had a real chance then American would turn into pink ponyland of shiny Reagan wonderfulness.

Under Bush Jr., Americans got an unrestrained avalanche of full-bore Reaganite New Rightism. And the reaction was pretty negative, finally.

So it's just when the Reaganite fixation is dying out, finally, thanks to Bush Jr. rather than the weak 'opposition' party which embraced much of that myth, that the GOP is most sensitive to hold on to their last supposedly positive role model.

Posted by El Cid | November 19, 2007 9:14 AM

It is a sad time in politics when you have to choose between logically impaired "liberals" who confuse Ronald Reagan with Hitler and freedom with racism, and war mongering neocon's on the other side who have no respect for the Bill of Rights or our constitution

Both of them suck.

No wonder Ron Paul is getting traction, even though I do think the gold standard is not going to fly and he is probably weaker on immigration that I would like.

Posted by daveg | November 19, 2007 9:39 AM

Pro Am

Newt Gingrich tried to shut the government down twice rather than sign on to Clinton's budget. Al Gore had to cast the tie breaker vote in the Senate to pass the budget. John Kasich said, "If this budget works, I will become a Democrat". Quit telling us that those reluctant Repubs created our surpluses, it was the Clinton tax increases that created a balanced budget.

Please give us a break when you imply that life under Jim Crow laws was better for blacks than life after the Voting Rights Act. Don't try to tell us that blacks were not being ejected from lunch counters and attacked by dogs and fire hoses for non-violent protest. Please don't try to tell us that electoral freedom caused ignorance and crime among blacks. And please don't try to tell us that Reagan's appeal to "State Rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi isn't a pitch to white people that he's on their side and the Voting Rights Act shouldn't have been passed.

Posted by blaze | November 19, 2007 10:24 AM

"It is a sad time in politics when you have to choose between logically impaired "liberals" who confuse Ronald Reagan with Hitler and freedom with racism, and war mongering neocon's on the other side who have no respect for the Bill of Rights or our constitution."

Once again, the old question must be asked, are you evil or just stupid? Nobody said that Reagan = Hitler. Politicians are to be judged on their records. They aren't random, rather irrelevant philosophy professors at relatively unknown colleges or something. You here are only supporting white people's freedom at the expense of black people's freedom. That makes you a bad person and a supporter of an American Southern form of apartheid. You only have yourself to blame for that.

Posted by Reality Man | November 19, 2007 10:40 AM

i'm not really interested in the hyper-partisan aspect of this thread, or the derision with which some say the words "liberal" and "conservative".

it is said that at the end of a day of political wrangling, reagan and tip o'neill could get together for a friendly drink.

hunter s thompson and patrick buchanan used to argue politics over cocktails.

they were political adversaries, but friends at the end of the day. americans.

now one side is hitler and the other is stalin. reagan was a racist who began the conservative piecemeal destruction of america and clinton was a deviant skirt-chasing buffoon who deserves no credit for anything good as long as there was a republican within ten miles of him.

what are we missing here? ahh, yes: reagan worked with democrats. clinton worked with republicans. they were both flawed in some ways. both had to give a wink and a nod to the ideologies of their respective bases. that's politics.

these are just men who had to take on the dirty job of being president of the most powerful country in the world; they're not saints. neither deserves to be on mt. rushmore.

we fully mired in the era where the one side thinks the other side aren't truly americans. we're losing our civility. in this environment, our constitution is our national security.

so why don't we talk about that?

Posted by lonesomerobot | November 19, 2007 10:58 AM

Looks like David Broder has a sockpuppet. Well, guess what, for the black community, when racist legislation gets passed, it affects them. Why do you think so many African-Americans aren't exactly fans of Reagan?

Posted by Reality Man | November 19, 2007 11:09 AM

lonesomerobot,

your narrative does not include a very pertinent aspect.
democrats were willing to give reagan a total pass. democratic leaders ignored their base's screams for impeachment of reagan in the late '80's and were more than willing to allow him to ride into the sunset.
conservatives, on the other hand, never accepted clinton's legitimacy, and attacked his presidency from the very first months. they attacked him on a personal level because they saw that as a way to weaken him politically.
david brock's books fully document these facts. he knows because he was one of the main operatives until he saw the light and came to his senses.
so, enough of this "both sides do it" and "both sides have done it".
nonsense.
republicans, under the tutelage of people like lee atwater and rove made a calculated decision to demonize their democratic opponents in order to polarize the electorate and acheive their political ends.
democrats, to a large degree, have been like deer in the headlights as they routinely refuse to understand exactly what republicans are doing to them. it is an incredible and ongoing state of denial that seems to think that yes, we can all just get along, contrary to the history of the last 20 years.
however, they are learning and are starting to finally return fire, but any attempt to find instances where both dems and repubs have been engaging in the same vitriol is just going to fail.
for instance, according to repub spin, tom daschle was the meanest, most partisan person ever on the earth.
tom daschle?? the very definition of the milquetoast political leader? mr. wimp himself?
yes, according to republicans, that tom daschle was the embodiment of the mean and nasty democratic partisan.
pulleezzeee!!!!

Posted by frankie d | November 19, 2007 11:30 AM

frankie d,

liberals, on the other hand, never accepted bush's legitimacy, and attacked his presidency from the very first months. they attacked him on a personal level...

ironic, isn't it? sure the impetus and reasoning are completely different, and you're talking to a former libertarian who voted a straight dem ticket in 2004 and 2006, absolutely because of bush. you don't have to explain to me what happened. i know how it works; i lived through the 80s and 90s. i marveled at just how much the limbaughs, farbers and drudges could bitch and moan about clinton.

but while you're battling it out in the trenches of ideological warfare, take a minute to stick your head up and notice that most americans don't give a damn whose fault it is. this tit-for-tat over an event that happened almost 30 years ago may win you a battle but it will lose you the war.

let the reagan apologists have their mythology. it's not going to make more blacks vote republican, that's for sure. it's not going to change the southern vote. in the here and now, we have a president that refuses to work with democrats and a media that refuses to report a republican minority in congress that is blocking almost everything and blaming the majority for it.

we have a republican party that's headed by an absolute turd sandwich of a president, and most of the party faithful still able to suck it up and say, "he may be a turd sandwich, but he's OUR turd sandwich." and we have a democratic congress that is basically afraid to say, "you know, we should probably stick to our guns and beat this turd sandwich at every turn."

you see, most of the rest of america doesn't care if you want to sit around and debate whether or not a dead president, who was basically pretty popular despite his flaws and misdeeds, was also a racist. it's not going to change anyone's mind at this point. they also don't want to hear republicans blame clinton for everything under the sun that's wrong. you're basically having a 'who has the loudest choir' contest. and david brooks, the silly columnist that he is, has drawn you into a fruitless argument that is a total waste of your energies.

the battle is about today, not 30 years ago. if you want to win the ideological war, go and yell at the democrats in congress (most of them) for not having a spine and tell them that defending the constitution IS national security. scoring points by disparaging reagan may piss off conservatives, but it doesn't win you any converts.

Posted by lonesomerobot | November 19, 2007 12:58 PM

i agree.
the dems are spineless and i unfortunately think that there is something in the dems' dna that makes them more susceptible to being wimps and spineless.
i happen to agree when republicans denigrate dems as being wimps and girly-men.
why?
because they so often behave like wimps and girly-men.
republicans know that and like bullies in the playground, take full advantage of their faint-hearted adversaries.
but mythology is extremely important.
for instance, the mythology of the reagan tax-cuts was crucial in silencing real, sustained opposition to the bush tax cuts. republicans, in a full-throated argument, extolled what had happened under reagan and argued that the same could happen under bush if the tax cuts were just given a chance. and so despite the history of the historic reagan deficits and the realities of what clinton inherited after the reagan cuts, the dems let the tax cuts happen without too much resistance. despite the fact that the rationale for the cuts changed whenever it was necessary to change the rationale.
there is a reason that all of the republican presidential candidates try to slip on the reagan mantel: they are trying to become the living embodiment of that mythical figure and if they are successful in donning that cloak, it will do nothing but help them.
republicans are extremely aware of the value of myth and narrative and legend and they have used all of the above fantastically.
i admire what the gop does with their sow's ear of a party. republicans are excellent political strategists. they know how to maneuver politically. they know how to win elections. the fact that they have remained so viable and at times dominant when their agenda is antithetical to and opposed by most americans is testimony to their abilities.

Posted by frankie d | November 19, 2007 1:32 PM

Hitler is anathema in the Jewish community not because of his personal views, but because of his consistent advocacy of the eradication of Europe's Jewish population, most notably during the landmark Holocaust of the early 1940s.

How do you expect any point about Reagan to be taken seriously when you unwittingly us that point to demonstrate Godwin's law?

Posted by Shinyk | November 19, 2007 5:59 PM