WWW.PRESIDENTS"R"US.COM

The Krugman/Brooks/Herbert New York Times round-robin on the Neshoba Country Fair, Ronald Reagan, and racism has reached all portions of the universe, with some truly peculiar arguments now being advanced in Reagan’s defense.

At National Review Online Deroy Murdock defends going to Neshoba, writing that

“Though some staffers worried about this appearance, Reagan believed in honoring his scheduled commitments, not canceling them.”

Sticking to his appearance commitments would go on to serve Reagan well at Bitburg, and gosh, whatever did those staffers think might happen?

Murdoch’s examples of Reagan’s anti racism range from the odd:

“Ronald Reagan Jr. recalls the day at a California barbecue when his father dived into a pool to save a black child from drowning.”

…to making the case against Reagan. Murdoch excuses Reagan’s opposition to a Martin Luther King federal holiday as thrift, but then wanders into Reagan’s snide response when asked about Jesse Helms’ red-baiting of King.

‘ “We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?” Reagan telephoned Mrs. King to apologize for that comment.”

But it got all better when he invited Mrs. King to the White House!

Murdock links to an even more strained defense of Reagan by Nicholas Wapshott, author of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.

Wapshott brings up examples of Reagan’s alleged antiracism which reveal more about Wapshott than Reagan.

Did you know that “The Reagans were so poor that he played in the street with black children and thought little of it.“?

By fourth grade however, Reagan’s elementary school class appeared to be Negro-free.

Wapshott hurts Reagan without knowing it, dragging poor old Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce around one more time:

“Reagan appointed a black to his Cabinet, Samuel Pierce as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, though they were hardly close.“

So not close, of course, that when Pierce and some mayors were at the White House Reagan didn’t recognise Pearce. “Mister Mayor,” Reagan said, “how are things going in your city?””

In the back. The black guy.

David Greenberg in Slate sums up the case for the prosecution:

“No one who used the phrase “states’ rights” in living memory of the massive resistance movement against forced desegregation could be unaware of the message of solidarity it sent to Southern whites about civil rights… But because the term also connoted a general opposition to the growth of the federal government’s role in economic life, nonracist whites could comfort themselves that politicians like Nixon and Reagan were using it innocently—and thus shrug off any guilt they might feel for being complicit in racist campaigning. It was a dog whistle to segregationists…Reagan succeeded in altering the terms of political debate when it came to race. Stripping away the crude bigotry that had cost the white South the rest of nation’s sympathy in the 1950s and 1960s, he and other conservative political leaders fashioned an ideology in which racial politics were implicit, and yet still powerful. Ever since, their followers have been able to indignantly claim that any allegations of racism are smears and slurs—and discredit the entire discussion by making it about personal prejudice rather than public policy.”

Former Vice President Dan Quayle got quite a run out of attacking a fictional single mother. The head of Quayle’s Vice President’s museum aims lower, victimizing a 5th grade girl in order to make some point about media bias.

United States Vice Presidential Museum Executive Director Dan Johns was leading Schererville Indiana students through a mock election when he chose to trip up candidate Maddy Martin by focusing hard questions on her while giving her opponent Roger Kaufman a pass.

According to The Times of Munster Indiana,

“Johns took credit for Martin’s loss. He told the children that he was going to act as the media and Internet. During the debate, he rephrased questions to put her in a bad light. He prodded her for further explanation of her answers but left Kaufman untouched…He wanted to prove a point that information sources influence the election process.”

Johns also explored the mysteries of the Electoral College with the youngsters.

“He used ice cream to explain how electoral votes work. In a group of six student presidential candidates, five preferred chocolate, and the sixth preferred strawberry. But because the group could have only one of the flavors, their delegate was directed to buy chocolate for the group.”

No word if he explored what happens if chocolate fans get only 3/5ths of a vote.

Old Times

After several rounds in the New York Times pages and blog mentions beyond count, an historian who has actually studied Mississippi, Civil Rights and the rise of Ronald Reagan weighs in:

“Throughout his career, Reagan benefited from subtly divisive appeals to whites who resented efforts in the 1960s and 70s to reverse historic patterns of racial discrimination. He did it in 1966 when he campaigned for the California governorship by denouncing open housing and civil rights laws. He did it in 1976 when he tried to beat out Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination by attacking welfare in subtly racist terms. And he did it in Neshoba County in 1980.

Reagan knew that southern Republicans were making racial appeals to win over conservative southern Democrats, and he was a willing participant. Despite what Brooks claims, it’s no slur to hold Reagan accountable for the choice that he made. Neither is it mere partisanship to try to think seriously about the complex ways that white racism has shaped modern conservative politics.

Throughout his career, Reagan benefited from subtly divisive appeals to whites who resented efforts in the 1960s and 70s to reverse historic patterns of racial discrimination. He did it in 1966 when he campaigned for the California governorship by denouncing open housing and civil rights laws. He did it in 1976 when he tried to beat out Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination by attacking welfare in subtly racist terms. And he did it in Neshoba County in 1980.

Reagan knew that southern Republicans were making racial appeals to win over conservative southern Democrats, and he was a willing participant. Despite what Brooks claims, it’s no slur to hold Reagan accountable for the choice that he made. Neither is it mere partisanship to try to think seriously about the complex ways that white racism has shaped modern conservative politics.”

Joseph Crespino

Slate’s “chatterbox” coumn [“Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics”] touched briefly on racism charges against Ronald Reagan but largely concerned itself with internal New York Times politics rather than the meat of story.

As Slate points out, Times columnist David Brooks indirectly attacked Times columnist Paul Krugman over the latter’s use of what Brooks calls a “slur.” The charge is that Ronald Reagan opened his campaign in Mississippi near where three civil rights workers were killed, and spoke coded appeals to racism by touting “state’s rights.” Brooks even dragged poor “even the liberal Kevin Drum” into his Reagan revisionism.

It’s a long way for a sandwhich, and Slate doesn’t really try to discuss the truth or not of Brooks’ “slur” charge.

Slate does link to Bob Herbert Times columns which go futher portraying what Reagan was up to. One column mentions Mississippi only in passing, training most of it’s fire on the history of Republican candidates and Bob Jones University.

The school still banned interracial dating when compassionate conservative George Bush dropped by in 2000, and a defensive university spokesperson pointed out that it was nothing new. Reagan was there first! He returned the favor once in office, backing the university against the IRS over keeping a tax exempt status while segregated.

And Krugman now mentions Bob Jones and a laundry list of Reagan racist moments in his blog.

Perhaps the lesson is that limiting yourself to what David Brooks wants to say about the history of Ronald Reagan, Republicans and race won’t get you far.

The National Archives Doc ‘O The Day for Saturday

Surfacing this picture gives the Archives reason enough to link to a 1998 article in their publication “Prologue,” “I Am Entitled to the Medal of Honor and I Want It” Theodore Roosevelt and His Quest for Glory

The story is a trawl through the documents and secondary sources on Roosevelt’s brief combat experience near Santiago Cuba with the Rough Riders, doing his part lifting Spanish Tyranny from the grateful Cuban people [and of course to protect our white women.]

It’s quite a tale. The author points out that Roosevelt’s charge was up Kettle Hill, not neighboring San Juan Hill, and that “By the time the assault reached the top of Kettle Hill the ground was practically deserted by the Spanish soldiers.”

Roosevelt backed up his medal of honor pitch with documents from his superior officers. But the article points out none of them were there, and they largely replicated second hand documents or repeated what he had told them.

The Theodore Roosevelt Association claimed the author was biased, but perhaps what they object to is the comic effect he achieves quoting TR bluster:

“I don’t know who saw me throughout the fight, because I was almost always in the front and could not tell who was close behind me, and was paying no attention to it.”

He didn’t get the medal, he became President and the issue slumbered. During the 90s an effort to right past military awards wrongs against African-American soldiers was piggy-backed by Roosevelt fans, and Congress passed a bill asking for another review of the record. Which found against Roosevelt.

His Great-Grandson Tweed Roosevelt finally received the award during Bill Clinton’s last week in office. This instance is not generally attacked as part of Clinton’s shall we say generous use of his pen on the way out.

In the citation it became once again “a desperate and gallant charge up San Juan Hill.”

Clinton was at his wistful, head tilting, wondering best as he repeated the misinformation Roosevelt generated:

“Two high-ranking military officers who had won the Medal of Honor in earlier wars and who saw Theodore Roosevelt’s bravery recommended him for the medal, too. For some reason, the War Department never acted on the recommendation…”