November 14th, 2007
Conservatives religiously defend Reagan’s exploitation of racial tensions to get elected, and when confronted with the evidence, conservatives are quick to say, Well, it’s complex.
Bob Herbert, of the NY Times, reminds us that, indeed, things were complex and that there’s a certain context in which Reagan’s use of racial prejudices must be observed:
Let’s set the record straight on Ronald Reagan’s campaign kickoff in 1980.
Early one morning in the late spring of 1964, Dr. Carolyn Goodman, her husband, Robert, and their 17-year-old son, David, said goodbye to David’s brother, Andrew, who was 20.
[...]
It was a dangerous mission, and Andrew’s parents were reluctant to let him go. But the family had always believed strongly in equal rights and the benefits of social activism. “I didn’t have the right,” Dr. Goodman would tell me many years later, “to tell him not to go.”
After a brief stopover in Ohio, Andrew traveled to the town of Philadelphia in Neshoba County, Mississippi, a vicious white-supremacist stronghold. Just days earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan had firebombed a black church in the county and had beaten terrified worshipers.
Andrew would not survive very long. On June 21, one day after his arrival, he and fellow activists Michael Schwerner and James Chaney disappeared. Their bodies wouldn’t be found until August. All had been murdered, shot to death by whites enraged at the very idea of people trying to secure the rights of African-Americans.
The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.
That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”
Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable.
[...]
He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.
And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
[...]
To see Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in its proper context, it has to be placed between the murders of the civil rights workers that preceded it and the acknowledgment by the Republican strategist Lee Atwater that the use of code words like “states’ rights” in place of blatantly bigoted rhetoric was crucial to the success of the G.O.P.’s Southern strategy. That acknowledgment came in the very first year of the Reagan presidency.
I agree with Mr. Herbert, Reagan apologists have reason to be ashamed of his actions, but have no right to change the meaning of history.
March 22nd, 2006
This frankly deserves a lot more attention than what I can give it here in this quick post that am writing just before going to bed — this subject is certainly worth revisiting at length, which I certainly hope to do.
Kevin Phillips, author of American Dynasty, among other books, has recently published American Theocracy, which takes a close look at the relationship between the Republican Party and the religious fundamentalists right in America. Kevin Phillips goes even further than merely describing the relationship, however. In fact, he suggests that the Republican Party is now the first religious party in American history and that it is this phenomenon that has influenced the Bush Administration’s total lack of a policy apparatus — essentially, the Bush White House has given up on formulating a governing policy and, in stead, has catered to the demands of this extremely influential constituency within the Republican Party by using the White House as a political tool to consolidate control over the religious right.
Now, Kevin Phillips is not some media pundit writing about the Republican Party from the outside, as he’s been an inside player of the Republican Party as a member of Nixon’s White House team. It was during that time, in the early to mid 1970s, that Kevin Phillips began to observe the inroads that the religious fundamentalist right was making within the Republican Party — just around the time that Nixon was launching the Southern Strategy to courtship Southern Whites unhappy with the progress of the Civil Rights movement. Today, of course, the Republican Party is apologizing for its use of race as a wedge issue to courtship the bigot vote in the South; never mind that they continue to use race and other social wedge issues to divide the public, and to attract the bigoted and close minded elements to the Republican Party come election day.
All right, back to Kevin Phillips. As I mentioned above, with American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips does more than merely describe the nexus of religious fundamentalism and the Republican Party. He goes on to describe how the erosion of the manufacturing base, and the transformation of our economy to a finance centric one, are colluding to destroy the social and economic security that America’s middle class enjoyed for much of the twentieth century. This is how NPR’s Fresh Air, the program on which I heard about American Theocracy, describes the author and his book:
Kevin Phillips rose to prominence on the heels of Richard Nixon’s political triumphs. His 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority was hailed as a visionary work of political analysis. But his new book, American Theocracy, argues that the Republican Party — and the country — is headed for disaster.
Subtitled "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," American Theocracy puts the trials of modern America into the context of other great historical powers. From Rome to Great Britain, Phillips identifies the keys to their decline — and draws parallels to modern America.
Phillips wrote a 2004 bestseller, American Dynasty, about the Bush family. American Theocracy is a harsh criticism of the current Bush administration and the Republican Party. Phillips, a senior strategist for Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential bid, registered himself as a political independent in 2002.
I encourage every one to hear Kevin Phillips’ radio interview with Terry Gross, of Fresh Air. At one point during the interview Terry Gross asks the author to describe whether he’s now a Republican or Democrat, and he simply answers that he’s an independent. He then goes on to lament about how the Republican Party has been totally taken over by the religious right, and how the Dominionists’ apocalyptic end-of-days vision of the world has rendered that party incapable of dealing with the economic issues that he raises in American Theocracy. At this point Kevin Phillips, as if thinking out loud, offers that Democrats are equally incapable of addressing the same economic concerns, though for obviously different reasons. Now, here’s the part that intrigues me and, by the way, I have to agree with Kevin Phillips when he says that: Democrats are incapable of dealing with the economic issues, because they too receive big time money (though not the same amount as Republicans) from the financing centers that are pushing our economy away from manufacturing and into a finance centric one (an economic model that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of virtually everyone else).
So, where do we go from here? Now, I know that in the short term the goal is one chamber of Congress — hopefully both chambers. And then, there’s 2008, for sure. But both of these goals are easy by comparison to the more monumental task of creating one party — just one party — that’s responsive to average voters and, too, a party that’s not beholden to the big money interests that fill the election year coffers of our politicians.
September 10th, 2004
1. The so-called liberal media are just a bunch of fucking wimps that are just scared shitless about being labeled “liberal,” so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry.
2. Let me explain what I mean by “factual conservative dominance of our media industry.”
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan’s election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute — there are others, but these are the principal ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.)
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today’s GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today’s Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let’ say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the “factual conservative dominance of our media industry” has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that’s geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock’s Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O’Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there’s enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is “newsworthy.”
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don’t even challenge the assumption. Furthermore, it is under these conditions that “Liberal” has become a “dirty word” and, conversely, “Conservative” has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it.
Now, here’s what I wrote in another post about the true media bias:
“[T]he media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us — all U.S. citizens — have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they’re doing of covering substantive issues.”
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
