Why Reagan’s Race Record Matters
Posted by
tgirsch
And there’s a substantive, non-petty reason why I try to persuade people to see Reagan rather than Saint Reagan – namely, the lionization of Reagan has modern political and policy implications.
Whatever you think of him, it’s pretty undeniable that Reagan’s record has some rather repulsive elements (much like other Presidents). Race particularly stands out, given the systematic hostility that Reagan and his agencies had for civil rights efforts. But there’s also Iran-Contra, and Negroponte’s death squads in Central America, to name a few. That said, Reagan got some things right too. Marginal tax rates, for instance, were too high for some income brackets in 1979.
The point is not that Reagan is irredeemably evil, but that he doesn’t deserve the deification he receives not only from Republicans, but from the public as well. His race record doesn’t discredit his entire administration, but it does mean that we shouldn’t name airports after him.
…snip…
Modern race policy arguably turns on whether federal interventions remain necessary in light of the state-sponsored interventions of the past (which had been around, oh, 350 years or so). To me, the fact that the President of the United States from 1980 to 1988 successfully exploited race – and so actively opposed civil rights initiatives – is itself evidence that we’re not there yet. Indeed, the problem is not solely Reagan, but that Reagan reflected public opinion. If the public thought “welfare queens” and Philadelphia campaigns were ok, then that’s further evidence that we’re not there yet.
The upshot is that a honest appraisal of Reagan’s racial record would inform modern policy debates. But if we lionize him – and whitewash his record by repressing the negative in favor of a “Morning in America” narrative – then we lose sight of that record.
And those that forget the past… continue to employ David Addington and John Negroponte.
[Emphasis in original]
As they say, read the whole thing.
Tgirsch, good post. I agree with this.
Comment 11/30/2007
I agree with this.
It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Comment 11/30/2007
Of course it matters. Philadelphia, Mississippi, is where Ronnie chose to begin his campaign, and the words he used there set the tone for his Presidency. It also began to reveal what the true nature of modern-day conservatism had become.
The Klanservatives finished up their coup in 2004, by demonizing another class of American citizen. But I knew (and I suspect that a lot of other people knew, especially the voters who went to the polls for the Chimpster) that the “gay marriage” smokescreen was actually the opening of a door, a way to allow the bigotry that hides just beneath the “big tent” of modern-day Gopperdom to flourish out in the open again. The bigots could finally flaunt their bigotry and feel good about doing it.
With the selected 2008 campaign target of those brown folks from south of the border, it’s clear that the Klanservatives maintain their lock on the Republican Party. That may not change for generations, if indeed it ever does.
Comment 12/1/2007