Free Dartmouth

home

1/09/2003 07:09:00 PM | Timothy

Racist Races to elect Reagan

Earlier, I said I enjoyed reading Andrew Hanauer's column on Trent Lott, but Andrew Kallman on the Dartmouth Observer apparently is not unconvinced. I can think of other examples Hanauer left out (how could he not), but I'm distinctly unimpressed by Kallman's response. If Kallman can't understand why beginning a presidential campaign in a town known for the killing of three civil rights workers isn't a racial signal, I'd like him to tell us why Reagan (or his campaign) chose that oh-so-obvious place. If talk about state's rights, the language used to defend slavery and segregation, is not always racist, talking about it in that context rightly raise eyebrows to those paying attention.

The point of the racist signals is to be somewhat ambigious: you say something that anyone who knows the context (i.e. racists) will know what it is about, but you can deny you knew about the context later. Are we to expect that the political strategists deciding where to launch Reagan's campaign didn't research the town and didn't think about the message it would send? I for one don't think they were that ignorant, and I hope Kallman isn't dumb or naive enough to think they were. Actually Kallman concedes Reagan knew, but does not offer any conceivable explanation why Reagan would still choose that town. It is not like Reagan was born there, was he? The best reason I can see for making that statement in that town while launching your campaign is that Reagan wanted to send a signal to certain Southerners that he was on their side. If there is a better explanation why that town was chosen, I'd like to hear it and in absence of anything plausible, it is more than fair for Hanauer to cite that as an example. The Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994 largely because of a shift in one region: the South. Also, I think John Derbyshire of The National Review is right when he says that Republicans would not win nationally without the support of that (however small) segments of racists. Why is this so? Interesting to ponder.... I'm open to other interpretations.

What would be proof for Kallman that Reagan's campaign knowingly appealled to racists? Kallman didn't think it was fair of Hanauer to cite one old example of Rush Limbaugh saying "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" to a Black caller. What if Reagan had said in public something like what Rush Limbaugh said to that black caller (which I hope Kallman thinks is racist)?Apparently Kallman thinks that to rightly be called racist, you have to issue one racist statement after another after another. (Gee, I'm sure Limbaugh hasn't... but let's check his archived transcripts.... oh wait, those aren't easily available... I wonder why Hanauer supposedly relied on a liberal quote sheet. I'll give another example from a liberal source who has it on tape: "Black students do not have the genetic-heretary-backround to score an average or higher-than-average test score in college." Isolated incident, right?) Yes, there needs to be a pattern. In the case of the Republican party there is. It's inevitable that in the space of 800 words, a D column is not going to be at the level of a senior thesis (though many books have been written on this topic) but I thought it was pretty decent.

Before and during the Lott fiasco, I often heard things like 'you can't call someone racist because you can't see their heart.' Well if you want to maintain that, at least admit that it is not always illegitimate to judge someone based on their public statements and actions, especially ones that are not exceptions (Limbaugh) and/or were planned and well thought through (Reagan).

By the way, if anyone wants to cite examples of racism from White Southern Democrats and argue that the pattern extends to American politics in the South or the country as a whole, knock yourself out. The Republican's 'Southern Strategy' worked because they were best able to appeal to the racists in the South that the Democrats had previously locked up. It is no suprise you still have Democratic politicians elected around from the time when Democrats excelled at playing that game.

Oh, Kallman ends with lovely talk about how Reagan was a principled man so he can't be racist: I say that sounds like unsubstantiated b.s. (no, a biography by Dinesh D'Souza or another Reagan acolyte does not count as proof). I'm not sure how his public actions show him to be so principled. For all Reagan's talk of family values, he was divorced, and as governor of California signed one of the most liberal no-fault divorce laws in the country. Reagan's talk about 'federalism,' he tied states' highway funding to states' passing laws to lower the drinking age. I guess he was real committed to federalism, huh?

Or maybe Kallman's logic unwittingly helps illustrates the point about the signals Reagan (or least his campaign) meant to send. Even if Reagan was deeply committed to some of his rhetoric, that doesn't mean he was committed to all of it, and I guess Kallman's point could be used to show that the rhetoric he didn't follow through with was the rhetoric he didn't deeply believe. Reagan did not stand up for racial progress (yes, there are details!), so I suppose that wasn't one of the principles he deeply held, right? I'm not sure how Kallman gets from Reagan's deep beliefs (in say, Star Wars or supply-side economics) to saying that one of those deep beliefs was to racial equality. Of course, even if Reagan was a 'nice' guy, he often had aides prepare cards from him on exactly what to say. But I'm sure Reagan has the soundness to select great non-racist advisors. Absolutely no question about Reagan's judgment or policies, because the man knows where to look for advice right? As a funny side note, did you know that Reagan's schedule was almost entirely controlled by Nancy Reagan's astrologer? Hmm.....

All this talk about how Reagan's friends say he was, of course, deeply principled (and he seems like a nice guy on TV, gee!) so he couldn't possibly be racist, reminds me of how people defended George W. Bush when he visited Bob Jones university. Bush may not have a racist bone in his body, as the saying goes, but he still allowed his operatives to run a dirty, racist campaign in South Carolina. One Bob Jones University Professor admitted to spreading (false) rumors that McCain fathered a black baby (it was actually adopted). If Republicans don't have a race problem, they sure a problem with how they seem to accidently run a lot of racist campaigns.

perma link | | 0 comments

0 Comments:

0 Comments: