« A/V Geek Bleg | Main | GenderCard: Because Chris Matthews Doesn't Take American Express »
November 11, 2007
Innocent Mistakes
Paul Krugman, responding to He Who Shall Not Be Named*, lists some of Ronald Reagan's "innocent mistakes," all those hilarious instance when the trusting, well-intentioned conservative icon accidentally adopted positions, legislative priorities, and personnel strategies that just happened to accord with what hardcore Southern racists -- and Reagan's new white, Southern, base -- wanted.
In any case, to go back to the original argument, Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi may or may not have been placed there as some sort of dog whistle. But when Reagan went to the South and began talking about States' Rights, let's not pretend any of us are naive enough to miss the intended resonance. Reagan probably wasn't, himself, a racist, but he was very interested in attracting the votes of those with, shall we say, retrograde views on the subject. And that came out not only in his rhetoric, but, as Krugman shows, in his policies.
*David Brooks
November 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Reagan probably wasn't, himself, a racist
White guy born in 1911 who switched from the Dems to the Republicans in 1962. Your youth is showing.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 11, 2007 2:54:17 PM
Mistakes, innocent mistakes. Hmm, Reagan at the German cemetary with all the Waffen SS, just a coincidence, I expect. Shit, let bygones be bygones. He's the Gipper and he won the Cold War single handed, just like he won WWII out in Hollywood.
Posted by: STEVEinSC | Nov 11, 2007 3:20:15 PM
I don't know how you want to define racist, but the guy showed an utter lack of sympathy to everybody who wasn't on top. And he made a big show of ignoring racial issues. So I'd call him a racist.
Posted by: chris | Nov 11, 2007 3:34:17 PM
To be clear, I don't know if Regan was a racist (and I don't really care). But if there's a "probably" out there, I think it points the other way.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 11, 2007 4:57:01 PM
These days, the term "racist" seems to have been defined down until really only explicit white-supremacists fit the term. A white man can use racial epithets and people will seriously debate whether or not he "is" racist. He can use racist stereotypes in advocating for policies which negatively impact a disproportionate amount of people of color--still not a racist. He can have a problem with Latino people living in this country. Not a racist! Dress up in blackface? laugh at racist jokes? Not a racist!
Posted by: rufustfyrfly | Nov 11, 2007 5:09:54 PM
And Reagan was an actor, goddamit. It's ridiculous to seriously believe he gave a speech without being totally aware of the desired impact of his words on the audience.
|-(
Posted by: Gray | Nov 11, 2007 5:37:12 PM
Here is Reagan's speech. Make up your own mind if he played the race card or not. But only after listening? When it comes to race - both Democrats and Republicans do not wear white shirts?
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 11, 2007 7:40:39 PM
Here is Reagan's speech. Make up your own mind if he played the race card or not. But only after listening? When it comes to race - both Democrats and Republicans do not wear white shirts?
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 11, 2007 7:41:46 PM
Here is Reagan's speech. Make up your own mind if he played the race card or not. But only after listening? When it comes to race - both Democrats and Republicans do not wear white shirts?
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 11, 2007 7:41:52 PM
sorry for the echo!
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 11, 2007 7:42:30 PM
Not to introduce the whole "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" cliche, but if Reagan was willing to employ racist rhetoric and policies, doesn't that, um, make him a racist, no matter how blessedly unbiased he was in his own beautiful soul? That raises an interesting question: if you pursue policies which not only have the unintended effect of pleasing racists but which are formulated in and of themselves in part to attract racists, does it really matter what you say about yourself?
Posted by: scantron | Nov 11, 2007 9:21:37 PM
All of this debate about "what Reagan said" seems to me to be taking place in a rather pointless vacuum: it's not as if the Southern Strategy, or racism, started or ended with Ronald Reagan, or this one speech (or even, as Krugman notes, a whole series of remarks and actions). It's worth pointing out, too, that neither Bartlett, nor Brooks, called the speech "an innocent mistake." What both said was... well, it's complicated. And it is. That doesn't mean, as they try to suggest, that it still doesn't look bad. But it's not quite the blanket denial Krugman's making out to be.
It's worth remembering that 1980 was, in its way, a key shift in the electorate; it was the appearance of "Reagan Democrats" and a major demographic shift where years of building resentments and lack of identification caused a substantial reorganization in both parties, and in our national politics. But that shift, in the South, was about people who had long seen the Democrats as supportive of their... values, let's say... beginning to see the Republicans as more so. My point is, if you want to buy the notion that there was a "coded" appeal to white Southerners by the GOP, you have to think about who helped write the code. Reagan was in Mississippi because Mississippi was in play; it was not, at that point, as reliably Republican as it has become. Again, I think it's meaningful to remember what that context means.
My point is, as it was the last time we were discussing Brooks, simply that all of this is complicated. Our history as Americans on racial issues is not great, and there's plenty of bad rhetoric and poor choices to go around.
I don't know, honestly, if Reagan was racist. I'd probably use the word "prejudiced" (a word that seems to have gotten completely lost of late), but I'm not sure, really, why a label matters so much now. I think Krugman's right that none of this was "innocent" but I don't think anyone, really is saying that. I think what conservative apologists like Brooks and Bartlett are looking for is simply to say that conscious malevolence wasn't the goal. That too, it seems to me is beside the point. It's bad enough, really, that Reagan's appeals based on "welfare queens" and the rest succeeded as much as they did, bad intentions or no. Such constructions really didn't improve our conversation on race.
And that I think is the larger problem for Bartlett and Brooks - this attempt to rewrite history now so that Republicans don't so much deny a Southern Strategy as try to drag Democrats into it. No one's clean, we're all dirty... so that makes a lot of what Republicans have done on race for the past twenty five years okay. That's not, really, going to fly. It's true: no one's clean, we're all dirty... and that means you've got to deal with your dirty parts, not point out others'. And I would say Democrats have done a lot of the work on that score. Is there more to do? Sure, but I don't know a lot of Democrats - even Krugamn, who'd say we were perfect just as we are. Just that we're good, and trying to get better. Until Republicans figure out how to do that - and the recent moves on immigration suggest no one's learned much so far - they're not going to change minds. Certainly not in the black community. Not for a long, long time. But more pointedly, I don't think a lot of this can get better until we, as a nation, figure out a better way to talk about race. That's the bigger problem... and this "debate over the Reagan speech" doesn't suggest we're any closer to figuring it out.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 11, 2007 9:48:38 PM
But when Reagan went to the South and began talking about States' Rights, let's not pretend any of us are naive enough to miss the intended resonance.
The problem is that the premise behind the argument is false. Reagan didn't go to the South and "begin" talking about state's rights. Reagan had talked about state's rights everywhere. North, South, East, and West.
I don't know why liberals think it's a winning political or rhetorical strategy to argue that everything is about race. It didn't work against Reagan, or Bush, or the other Bush. A cynic would argue that Democrats are deliberately trying to stir up race-based hatred for their own political ends -- but as I said, it doesn't really work, so I'm not sure why they keep doing it.
When someone attacks welfare, responding "Attacks on welfare are racist, because everyone knows blacks = welfare!" doesn't actually refute the attacks on welfare, doesn't cause anybody to change his views, doesn't help race-relations, doesn't win elections.
When someone attacks crime, responding "Attacks on crime are racist, because everyone knows blacks = crime!" doesn't actually refute the attacks on crime, doesn't cause anybody to change his views, doesn't help race-relations, doesn't win elections.
When someone attacks illegal immigration, responding "Attacks on illegal immigration are racist, because everyone knows hispanics = illegal immigrants!" doesn't actually refute the attacks on illegal immigration, doesn't cause anybody to change his views, doesn't help race-relations, doesn't win elections.
Posted by: David Nieporent | Nov 11, 2007 10:29:05 PM
I don't know why liberals think it's a winning political or rhetorical strategy to argue that everything is about race.
Umm...what the hell are you talking about?
If you are saying that it *wasn't* inherently racist as hell for Reagan to invoke state's rights, while starting his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, while repeating debunked stories about 'welfare Cadillacs' and 'strapping young bucks' buying steaks with food stamps, then you are a fool.
If you are admitting that it *was* inherently racist to do those things, but that it somehow doesn't matter, because 'it's not a winning strategy for liberals', you are both a fool and spouting irrelevancies.
Shorter Captain Goto: come off it, David. You ain't fooling anyone.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Nov 11, 2007 11:34:21 PM
David Nieporent
The right wing is absolutely intent on canonizing Reagan, because he is the wind in their sails.
Tarring Reagan as a racist, or prejudiced, or even an enabler, makes his canonization a double-edged sword.
Democrats actually do win elections by calling out Republican racism. Why do you think they win 80% of the black vote? Why is the Black Church the sole conservative institution that works with the Democrats?
The Republican strategy is to appeal to the largest group in the country, white Christians. Part of their pitch is peddling fear of the brown hordes. Democrats call them out on it.
Both approaches "work" contrary to what David N. claims. The Democrats have the edge here, because long term demographics are on their side.
Reminding people that the Gipper wasn't above a racist appeal here and there "works" quite well. It prevents Reagan taking a place in our mythology next to Roosevelt or Lincoln. And rightfully so, he doesn't belong there.
I suspect that folks like David N. who argue over and over that they should stop mentioning race because it doesn't "work" are actually arguing the opposite. They want Democrats to stop because it works quite well.
Posted by: tomtom | Nov 11, 2007 11:48:14 PM
Hmm, the discussion here shows some confusion about the difference between making racist remarks and being a racist. Reagan deliberately pandered to racists, but he probably wasn't one himself. To hell with ethics and his own convictions, he wanted their votes. Period.
What does this make him? A bigot? A manipulator? Unethical? All those words don't seem to be strong enough to describe the horrible state of mind of such a person. It's a guy who sold his soul to the devil...
|-(
Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 6:04:26 AM
the discussion here shows some confusion about the difference between making racist remarks and being a racist.
I don't know why you think there is a difference between these two things. My point above was that this idea that "being a racist" is some metaphysical truth independent from ones actions and deeds is ridiculous. We can't, as President Bush II would have it, peer into Reagan's soul and see whether he was "really" a racist. We have his actions and words, just as we have with everyone else. And his actions and words were racist.
More than that, though, this tendency to think of (white) politicians and public figures as invariably more enlightened than the unwashed masses is incredibly patronizing. Politicians are people, and there is no reason to think that they magically rise above the prejudices and ignorance of the rest of the country. As was noted above, Reagan was "White guy born in 1911 who switched from the Dems to the Republicans in 1962." If he weren't racist it would be a fucking miracle.
Posted by: rufustfyrfly | Nov 12, 2007 11:16:44 AM
It's pretty rare for a person of Reagan's age not to have been a racist, especially by today's standard. Nothing in his background or life rebuts the natural starting position that he was a racist.
Posted by: pj | Nov 12, 2007 11:32:08 AM
Gray:
"Hmm, the discussion here shows some confusion about the difference between making racist remarks and being a racist. Reagan deliberately pandered to racists, but he probably wasn't one himself. To hell with ethics and his own convictions, he wanted their votes. Period.
What does this make him? A bigot? A manipulator? Unethical? All those words don't seem to be strong enough to describe the horrible state of mind of such a person. It's a guy who sold his soul to the devil...
|-("
It makes him a politician. If you only go after the votes of perfect people you won't win many elections. FDR wanted (and got) their votes also.
Posted by: James B. Shearer | Nov 12, 2007 2:35:53 PM
"If you only go after the votes of perfect people you won't win many elections."
Well, I guess I expose myself now as being a sentimental dreamer, but imho there has to be a limit for how far a politician should go...
Posted by: Gray | Nov 12, 2007 3:06:13 PM
When someone attacks illegal immigration, responding "Attacks on illegal immigration are racist, because everyone knows hispanics = illegal immigrants!" doesn't actually refute the attacks on illegal immigration, doesn't cause anybody to change his views, doesn't help race-relations, doesn't win elections.
I think you miss the point of these attacks. A lot of us believe that many of the arguments made about illegal immigrants (i.e., that the illegal act of crossing the border without inspection should bar the person and his or her children from ever receiving any benefit whatsoever, that illegal immigrants are costing us huge amounts of jobs, that illegal immigrants refuse to learn English, and that illegal immigrants are attempting a "reconquista" of the Southwestern United States) aren't made in good faith, or at least the people who make them really don't care whether they are true or not. And when you see arguments that expose the racial/ethnic core of much opposition to immigration (such as when someone expressing anti-immigration rhetoric starts talking about how awful it is that you have to "press one for English" in voicemail systems), it casts doubt as to whether the nonracial arguments are really that compelling or what is driving the opposition.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Nov 12, 2007 4:25:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
