Full Version: Reagan, Race and Revisionism
I learned a new word during the week while I sought refuge from the non-stop coverage of the passage and life and times of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
That word is hagiography. To be brief it means "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person."
And for those like myself who recall Reagan as a President who regarded civil rights and people of color with benign neglect at best and overt hostility at worse, the sugarcoated reminiscing and longing for the "good ol' days" when it was Morning In America for white people and Mourning in America for everybody else was hard to take.
In the same year that Friends, Fraser and Sex In the City limped to their ends, so did the Ronald Reagan Show. It was overwhelmingly popular with white audiences but considerably less so with black audiences.
A sampling of some of the reviews from the final reviews of Ronald Reagan---the non-airbrushed kind:
...while Reagan’s legacy may be honky-dory with white Americans, it is just "honky" to most Blacks, who viewed him as a willful encumbrance to progress and equality.
--- The Black World Today
But as is normal when anyone dies, the rough edges are made smooth. And with someone of Reagan's stature, what's left when the historical account has been paved over with good intentions is an individual with few to no flaws. Given the way African Americans felt about and lived under Ronald Reagan, this process of historical revisionism is problematic. His presidency was anything but sunny for us.
Take the first place Reagan first announced his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential run. He didn't announce it in Iowa, nor in New Hampshire. He didn't even announce it in California, the place he came to prominence.
He announced it in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
The only event of historical note to ever happen in Philadelphia, Mississippi, up until that point, was the murder of three civil rights workers (Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney) in 1964. Other candidates, including those from the Democratic side of the aisle, made it to Philadelphia, Mississippi, as well. Southern voters are a powerful bloc. But in Ronald Reagan's case, when he appeared before the citizens of Philadelphia, he spoke of one thing — his support for states' rights. And no matter the argument I've seen printed that Reagan meant the phrase in the context of the "Sagebrush Rebellion," that focused on wresting control of western grazing lands from the federal government, we all know what "states' rights" means in the South.
After he was elected, things didn't get much better.
http://www.africana.com/columns/slate/bw20040608reagan.asp
My TV's been on for several hours and, with all of the talking heads floating about, I see almost no African American or Latino faces. almost no gay faces. This man was a made-to-order icon of The Good Ol' Days, Of White America. Which should take nothing away from his best accomplishment, getting America moving and feeling good about itself again. But it should remind us that the inherent danger of leadership by nostalgia is the sharpening of cultural, racial, ethic and sexual divides in this country. A country now in mourning, but nobody is pointing out that only White Straight America is truly in morning, as one of the last vestiges of their moral case for global dominance has trotted off to that big ranch in the sky.
Blog of Christopher Priest: http://phonogram.us/admin/weblog.htm
I could list dozens of other examples of how The Great Communicator didn't communicate with Black America, but you get the point. For gays or Latinos or feminists or liberals or anyone who isn't white and straight, there are ample reasons to be less than nostalgic for the Reagan Years.
Do I think Reagan was a racist? Not in the classic sense as someone who actively disliked or hated people whose skin was of a different hue that his. I agree somewhat with former Congressman J.C. Watts who said on NPR that he knew Reagan wasn't a racist, but he was out of touch with matters of racial importance.
The Reagan Administration's support of Bob Jones University. His reluctant and tepid support of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday (when Sen. Jesse Helms insisted that King was a Communist, Reagan replied, "Well, I guess we'll know in 35 years." Reagan was referring to FBI files scheduled to be declassified in 35 years). The "constructive engagement" policy with South Africa. Being so oblivious that he referred to his lone black Cabinet member, Samuel Pierce the, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as "Mr. Mayor" at a reception for mayors.
At the end of the day Reagan, like Friends was a President who appealed primarily to his fan base. His charms and appeal throughly eluded me and nothing that was said in the attempted beatification of the man over the past week changed my mind one bit.
The question for debate:
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
That word is hagiography. To be brief it means "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person."
And for those like myself who recall Reagan as a President who regarded civil rights and people of color with benign neglect at best and overt hostility at worse, the sugarcoated reminiscing and longing for the "good ol' days" when it was Morning In America for white people and Mourning in America for everybody else was hard to take.
In the same year that Friends, Fraser and Sex In the City limped to their ends, so did the Ronald Reagan Show. It was overwhelmingly popular with white audiences but considerably less so with black audiences.
A sampling of some of the reviews from the final reviews of Ronald Reagan---the non-airbrushed kind:
...while Reagan’s legacy may be honky-dory with white Americans, it is just "honky" to most Blacks, who viewed him as a willful encumbrance to progress and equality.
--- The Black World Today
But as is normal when anyone dies, the rough edges are made smooth. And with someone of Reagan's stature, what's left when the historical account has been paved over with good intentions is an individual with few to no flaws. Given the way African Americans felt about and lived under Ronald Reagan, this process of historical revisionism is problematic. His presidency was anything but sunny for us.
Take the first place Reagan first announced his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential run. He didn't announce it in Iowa, nor in New Hampshire. He didn't even announce it in California, the place he came to prominence.
He announced it in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
The only event of historical note to ever happen in Philadelphia, Mississippi, up until that point, was the murder of three civil rights workers (Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney) in 1964. Other candidates, including those from the Democratic side of the aisle, made it to Philadelphia, Mississippi, as well. Southern voters are a powerful bloc. But in Ronald Reagan's case, when he appeared before the citizens of Philadelphia, he spoke of one thing — his support for states' rights. And no matter the argument I've seen printed that Reagan meant the phrase in the context of the "Sagebrush Rebellion," that focused on wresting control of western grazing lands from the federal government, we all know what "states' rights" means in the South.
After he was elected, things didn't get much better.
http://www.africana.com/columns/slate/bw20040608reagan.asp
My TV's been on for several hours and, with all of the talking heads floating about, I see almost no African American or Latino faces. almost no gay faces. This man was a made-to-order icon of The Good Ol' Days, Of White America. Which should take nothing away from his best accomplishment, getting America moving and feeling good about itself again. But it should remind us that the inherent danger of leadership by nostalgia is the sharpening of cultural, racial, ethic and sexual divides in this country. A country now in mourning, but nobody is pointing out that only White Straight America is truly in morning, as one of the last vestiges of their moral case for global dominance has trotted off to that big ranch in the sky.
Blog of Christopher Priest: http://phonogram.us/admin/weblog.htm
I could list dozens of other examples of how The Great Communicator didn't communicate with Black America, but you get the point. For gays or Latinos or feminists or liberals or anyone who isn't white and straight, there are ample reasons to be less than nostalgic for the Reagan Years.
Do I think Reagan was a racist? Not in the classic sense as someone who actively disliked or hated people whose skin was of a different hue that his. I agree somewhat with former Congressman J.C. Watts who said on NPR that he knew Reagan wasn't a racist, but he was out of touch with matters of racial importance.
The Reagan Administration's support of Bob Jones University. His reluctant and tepid support of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday (when Sen. Jesse Helms insisted that King was a Communist, Reagan replied, "Well, I guess we'll know in 35 years." Reagan was referring to FBI files scheduled to be declassified in 35 years). The "constructive engagement" policy with South Africa. Being so oblivious that he referred to his lone black Cabinet member, Samuel Pierce the, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as "Mr. Mayor" at a reception for mayors.
At the end of the day Reagan, like Friends was a President who appealed primarily to his fan base. His charms and appeal throughly eluded me and nothing that was said in the attempted beatification of the man over the past week changed my mind one bit.
The question for debate:
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
In 1980, Reagan recieved 11% of the black vote, hardly stellar, but statistically OK for a republican. I don't really think you can argue that he was not the president for ALL of America when he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984.
Certainly, kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three slain civil rights leaders was a misstep. But to many liberals, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, but this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement.
What Reagan said in MS, is this:
What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.
It should be noted, that Reagan received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
Link
From Link
More later...morning comes early for me.
In 1980, Reagan recieved 11% of the black vote, hardly stellar, but statistically OK for a republican. I don't really think you can argue that he was not the president for ALL of America when he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984.
Certainly, kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three slain civil rights leaders was a misstep. But to many liberals, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, but this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement.
What Reagan said in MS, is this:
What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.
It should be noted, that Reagan received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
QUOTE
Charles Evers was also an informal advisor to a diverse group of politicians, including Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Governor George Wallace.
Link
From Link
QUOTE
Robert Smith, professor of political science at San Francisco State, says Reagan was definitely not racist, but he was very conservative.
"He believed that the federal government had no authority under the Constitution to tell the states how to conduct their affairs," said Smith. "He said he would support civil rights in California, which he did. But he said the Congress had no right to dictate to the states about civil or voting rights."
"He believed that the federal government had no authority under the Constitution to tell the states how to conduct their affairs," said Smith. "He said he would support civil rights in California, which he did. But he said the Congress had no right to dictate to the states about civil or voting rights."
More later...morning comes early for me.
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
Actions speak louder than words-
http://hnn.us/articles/5544.html
I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?
Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.
The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.
I think, he hated the poor. I don't know if it is completely racial, but he sure did have a knack for being mean to them.
Funny thing is in the US- the poor don't vote much. Property owners are the biggest voters- and property owners aren't overwhelmingly poor- or black.
Actions speak louder than words-
http://hnn.us/articles/5544.html
I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?
Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.
The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.
I think, he hated the poor. I don't know if it is completely racial, but he sure did have a knack for being mean to them.
Funny thing is in the US- the poor don't vote much. Property owners are the biggest voters- and property owners aren't overwhelmingly poor- or black.
Nighttimer, I think that your post is a fascinating exploration of the white/black divide in America, but hardly limited to one man. You and many black media / politicians have focused on Reagan as if he caused the various blights on the black community, but the reality was often quite different.
Even the liberal Joint Center for Political Studiesestimated the black middle class grew by one-third from 1980 to 1988, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million. In addition, black employment from 1982 to 1987 grew twice as fast (up 24.9 percent) as white employment. Real black median family income rose 12.7 percent from 1981 to 1987, 46 percent faster than whites.
As for South Africa, the current president of that country was on NPR over the weekend, saying that 'Reagan was the first president to have dialogue with the ANC,' versus all previous presidents that dismissed them as a terror organization. He was complimenting Reagan for helping legitimizing them as a political organization.
Even the liberal Joint Center for Political Studiesestimated the black middle class grew by one-third from 1980 to 1988, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million. In addition, black employment from 1982 to 1987 grew twice as fast (up 24.9 percent) as white employment. Real black median family income rose 12.7 percent from 1981 to 1987, 46 percent faster than whites.
As for South Africa, the current president of that country was on NPR over the weekend, saying that 'Reagan was the first president to have dialogue with the ANC,' versus all previous presidents that dismissed them as a terror organization. He was complimenting Reagan for helping legitimizing them as a political organization.
Nightimer, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that Reagan "was out of touch with matters of racial importance." And I also agree that the near-beatification of the man is way over the top. I used to joke around that Reagan was the "patron saint" of Republicans, but it seems I wasn't far off the mark.
Reagan's being out of touch was not limited just to people of color, he was out of touch with young people of all colors, and all people of low to middle incomes. He vilified Vietnam war protesters, going so far as to say:
This is the man who, in 1969, engineered the dismissal of UC President Clark Kerr and sent armed National Guardsmen to put down a student strike at UC Berkeley (Kent State, anybody?).
His first year as governor (1967), he cut California's budget by 10%, cut the mental health care system (by closing state hospitals, which resulted in the exploding mentally ill homeless population), made major cuts in the university system and is responsible for tuition being instated. In his second term, he took aim at welfare. Reagan Timeline
It seems to be a sign of our going-ultraconservative times that the public reacted to his death with a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over the loss of "the great communicator".
Some of us remember history through a glass a little less rosy.
Edited to add: oh, yeah, I voted No. 2
Reagan's being out of touch was not limited just to people of color, he was out of touch with young people of all colors, and all people of low to middle incomes. He vilified Vietnam war protesters, going so far as to say:
QUOTE
Just before our Kent massacre, on April 7, 1970, Republican pro-war Governor Ronald Reagan in California said: "These students seek disruption...if it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!" Source
(sounds a bit like our current president's belligerent "Bring it on" statement.) This is the man who, in 1969, engineered the dismissal of UC President Clark Kerr and sent armed National Guardsmen to put down a student strike at UC Berkeley (Kent State, anybody?).
QUOTE
Everything Reagan did -- ordering drug testing for federal workers, advocating prayer in school, refusing federal funding for treatment of AIDS, the wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, conducted for a time against the express orders of Congress, his insistence on visiting a Nazi cemetery in Bitburg, Germany -- resulted in protests in the streets. Source
There are some excellent points in this San Francisco Chronicle website, plus some charts that track Reagan's popularity, etc.
There are some excellent points in this San Francisco Chronicle website, plus some charts that track Reagan's popularity, etc.
His first year as governor (1967), he cut California's budget by 10%, cut the mental health care system (by closing state hospitals, which resulted in the exploding mentally ill homeless population), made major cuts in the university system and is responsible for tuition being instated. In his second term, he took aim at welfare. Reagan Timeline
It seems to be a sign of our going-ultraconservative times that the public reacted to his death with a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over the loss of "the great communicator".
Some of us remember history through a glass a little less rosy.
Edited to add: oh, yeah, I voted No. 2
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 14 2004, 03:53 AM)
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
Actions speak louder than words-
http://hnn.us/articles/5544.html
I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?
Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.
The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.
I think, he hated the poor. I don't know if it is completely racial, but he sure did have a knack for being mean to them.
Funny thing is in the US- the poor don't vote much. Property owners are the biggest voters- and property owners aren't overwhelmingly poor- or black.
Actions speak louder than words-
http://hnn.us/articles/5544.html
I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?
Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.
The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.
I think, he hated the poor. I don't know if it is completely racial, but he sure did have a knack for being mean to them.
Funny thing is in the US- the poor don't vote much. Property owners are the biggest voters- and property owners aren't overwhelmingly poor- or black.
QUOTE
Funny thing is in the US- the poor don't vote much. Property owners are the biggest voters- and property owners aren't overwhelmingly poor- or black.
Who are the poor? What is the finanical limit that makes one poor?
That would be the same as me saying the educated don't vote. That is my experience, but I don't believe it is true of all educated.
Property owners? Seeing as the US is at an all time high in home ownership, not sure exactly what your are trying to say.
I think Reagan saw himself as a patriotic leader for all Americans. He did bring the adjective presidential back to the White House.
I disagreed with his policies and saw them as too tough on the lower classes of this country, but sympathetic analysts would look at his policies and say something like: in a rising tide all boats rise.
His focus on limiting the scope of government was designed to lead to reduced government services, but I think his people saw that as such a good thing for all people (the government that governs least governs best) that they overlooked the deficit spending to get into that position.
In our two-party system some groups have been struggling for political influence IMO because they are too closely and consistently aligned with the Democratic Party. These groups include unions and African Americans.
The Republican Party is pragmatic and when it has no reason to court a group of votes it seems to unleach holy heck on that group. (Air-traffic controllers, welfare recipients, California a la the energy crisis)
But I digress. . .
I disagreed with his policies and saw them as too tough on the lower classes of this country, but sympathetic analysts would look at his policies and say something like: in a rising tide all boats rise.
His focus on limiting the scope of government was designed to lead to reduced government services, but I think his people saw that as such a good thing for all people (the government that governs least governs best) that they overlooked the deficit spending to get into that position.
In our two-party system some groups have been struggling for political influence IMO because they are too closely and consistently aligned with the Democratic Party. These groups include unions and African Americans.
The Republican Party is pragmatic and when it has no reason to court a group of votes it seems to unleach holy heck on that group. (Air-traffic controllers, welfare recipients, California a la the energy crisis)
But I digress. . .
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jun 13 2004, 11:42 PM)
In 1980, Reagan recieved 11% of the black vote, hardly stellar, but statistically OK for a republican. I don't really think you can argue that he was not the president for ALL of America when he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984.
Certainly, kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three slain civil rights leaders was a misstep. But to many liberals, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, but this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement.
What Reagan said in MS, is this:
What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.
It should be noted, that Reagan received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
Certainly, kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three slain civil rights leaders was a misstep. But to many liberals, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, but this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement.
What Reagan said in MS, is this:
What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.
It should be noted, that Reagan received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
While winning 49 out of 50 states is quite impressive, winning only 11 percent of the black vote isn't and gives credence to the strong probability that having seen what Reagan's first four years had meant to them, the vast majority of black voters weren't interested in the sequel.
Launching his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi wasn't a "misstep." It was an act of cold-blooded political calculation and pandering. I am not "waving the bloody shirt" Dontreadonme about what "states rights" means. Let's not be disingenuous and pretend that phrase hasn't been corrupted by Southern racists to mean the federal government should have butted out in how they dealt with their "Negro problem."
The Gipper waged campaigns deeply rooted in racist rhetoric - "black welfare queens" - to attract white voters to his campaign. By using "state's rights" in his 1980 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were brutally murdered 16 years before, Reagan was deliberately using racially charged shibboleth to connect to his audience.
While such a phrase today is relatively ambiguous, 24 years ago, people knew its implication regarding race, especially in Mississippi.
Reagan also attempted to secure a tax exemption for Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The university was not granted exemption status because of its segregationist policies.
Bonzo's bedtime buddy also claimed the 1965 Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South." Funny how a law that allowed black people in the South to have a political voice was "humiliating," while keeping them from voting was good.
http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v...9/40c692c0bd6e1
Regarding Ralph Abernathy's endorsement of Reagan, Abernathy was a very sick and poor man toward the end of his life. He had written a book about his relationship with Martin Luther King Jr. called And the Walls Came Tumbling Down where he revealed King's sexual infidelities. King's family and many other black leaders harshly criticized Abernathy for selling out his friend. Abernathy would later tell an interviewer that he felt "betrayed" by Reagan: Too late. Abernathy's betrayal of King cost him considerable clout among blacks.
Abernathy says that Reagan let him down; that Reagan tricked him. Abernathy says that Reagan had promised to meet with him; that Reagan never met with him.
http://main.wgbh.org/ton/programs/6878_02.html
Many men when they get old grow more conservative and Abernathy joined Roy Innis and James Meredith in their evolution from civil rights activists to black conservatives. Abernathy, embittered at other black leaders, embraced white conservatives as illustrated by this photo of his hearty handshake with Senator Jesse Helms--certainly no friend to civil rights or Martin Luther King.
http://www.familyfed.org/causa/journal3.htm
Oh, and don't get me wrong Carlitoswhey, I don't consider Ronald Reagan the cause of all the "various blights" afflicting the black community. I'm saying that I don't think he was at all interested in resolving those blights.
Blacks are no more monolithic in their support or criticism of Reagan than any other President. You can find a lot of black folk who despised FDR, JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton. Just not in the staggering numbers that Reagan and George W. Bush are disliked.
Reagan's racial disparity is there and it's real. I didn't create it. I only lived through it.
QUOTE
Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
Reagan implied that he was a President for everyone and did a very good job of fooling the public.
One of his greatest feats was opening his presidential campaign in Philadelphia,Mississippi. His endeavor was to win over the Dixiecrats or another name would be the Reagan Democrats from the south.
QUOTE
By opening his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were killed in 1964, Reagan let the world know what he thought of civil rights, Nunn said. Reagan told the audience that he supported "states' rights," the code term Dixiecrats had used for segregation
A lot of what you're hearing now is that he did a lot to make Americans feel like Americans again," Nunn said. "But a lot of that was tapping into the silent majority, the angry white citizen upset over advancements in terms of civil rights.
"I think Ronald Reagan was a president that made racism fashionable again," Nunn said. "And he could do it with a smile. The face of racism was no longer George Wallace. ... Who can't like Ronald Reagan?"
Beyond the debate over policy, some political scholars say Reagan won the White House by using the "Southern strategy."
Using coded language to exploit wedge issues such as affirmative action and welfare, Reagan wooed disaffected Southern
Yes,Reagan was great acting, not only on stage or movies but running his campaign. People just couldn't dislike this likable man.
In asking various people what they thought of Reagan, their reply was that he was such a nice guy. It had nothing to do with what programs he abolished, just that he was such a nice guy.
There is a phrase to describe a good salesman, which is "he could sell a refrigerator to a eskimo. This describe Reagan 100%.
Also Military spending was increased while domestic programs were neglected, along with the people
QUOTE
Reagan is the source of a number of trends in American politics. Through the late 1970s, wages and working conditions were improving for ordinary Americans. From the day Reagan fired the air traffic controllers through eight years of his tax cutting and military spending, it became clear that a divide would be opened up between the rich and the rest of us, that public education and care for our young, old, and ill would be slashed in the name of militarism, and that -- in short and anachronistically -- Reagan would be the most radical approach toward a George W. Bush presidency prior to George W. Bush
Yes Reagan wanted everyone to think he was for the rich,poor,blacks,whites,everyone. But was he really? I believe the facts and history will tell a different story.
Strange as it may seem to you, Nighttimer, many conservatives, myself included, believe strongly in the concept of states rights. The real meaning of states rights, not a perverted, hijacked meaning espoused by Bubba and JimBob. But one of a smaller federal entity. This was a concept shared by Reagan, though more when he was Governor of California, than president.
The same Reagan who stated: I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary. Link
Interestingly, Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote an article for IMDiversity.com, in which he states:
The same Reagan who stated: I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary. Link
Interestingly, Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote an article for IMDiversity.com, in which he states:
QUOTE
But the Reagan administration did not mount a vigorous, and sustained legal challenge to affirmative action programs, or whittle away regulations mandating diversity in government hiring, promotions, and contracting programs that conservatives demanded. President Clinton, a centrist Democrat did.
Though civil rights leaders mocked him and ridiculed his claim, Reagan’s Justice Department was far more aggressive in prosecuting, and getting convictions, in high profile police abuse and racially motivated murder cases than the Carter administration. Reagan continued to be especially sensitive, and on occasion speak out, on the issue of racially motivated violence.
At a King observance, the year after the holiday officially was celebrated in 1986, Reagan denounced racial bigotry and discrimination. Reagan, in effect, wrapped himself in King’s mantle. Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush junior have followed that precedent and on every King holiday evoke his name and speak out against racial discrimination.
Though civil rights leaders mocked him and ridiculed his claim, Reagan’s Justice Department was far more aggressive in prosecuting, and getting convictions, in high profile police abuse and racially motivated murder cases than the Carter administration. Reagan continued to be especially sensitive, and on occasion speak out, on the issue of racially motivated violence.
At a King observance, the year after the holiday officially was celebrated in 1986, Reagan denounced racial bigotry and discrimination. Reagan, in effect, wrapped himself in King’s mantle. Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush junior have followed that precedent and on every King holiday evoke his name and speak out against racial discrimination.
I too, read Earl Ofari Hutchinson's essay about how Reagan was not as pernicious regarding race and civil rights. He sees the Reagan Years his way and I see it mine. As I said before, black people are not monolithic just as white people are not on the issue of President Reagan's legacy.
I just happen to hold the majority viewpoint and Hutchinson is in the minority. While that doesn't make me right it doesn't mean he is either.
You and I share an affinity for BrainyQuote.com Dontreadonme and I believe Reagan's quote that "Facts are stupid things" best applies to his blissfully naive ideas on race. What he said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is inconsistent with his support of the racially discriminatory Bob Jones University, his refusal to place sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, or his assertion that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a "humilation" for the South.
I do not want to get into a long-winded discussion on the merits of states rights. What I am talking about is the racist and white supremacist assertion of states rights as regards the oppression and denial of civil rights to blacks. For those who believed in legal segregation that WAS the "real meaning" of the phrase. That is what I mean and what Reagan was appealing to in his Philadelphia, Mississippi speech in 1980.
I just happen to hold the majority viewpoint and Hutchinson is in the minority. While that doesn't make me right it doesn't mean he is either.
You and I share an affinity for BrainyQuote.com Dontreadonme and I believe Reagan's quote that "Facts are stupid things" best applies to his blissfully naive ideas on race. What he said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is inconsistent with his support of the racially discriminatory Bob Jones University, his refusal to place sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, or his assertion that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a "humilation" for the South.
I do not want to get into a long-winded discussion on the merits of states rights. What I am talking about is the racist and white supremacist assertion of states rights as regards the oppression and denial of civil rights to blacks. For those who believed in legal segregation that WAS the "real meaning" of the phrase. That is what I mean and what Reagan was appealing to in his Philadelphia, Mississippi speech in 1980.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jun 13 2004, 10:42 PM)
Certainly, kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three slain civil rights leaders was a misstep. But to many liberals, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation.
DTOM, this seems a little naive to me or I am missing something. It is hard to imagine that Reagan would pick a little known spot such as Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick off a political campaign. Politicians choose sites for a reason. Giving a speech about states rights as the head of a party that was spearheading a southern strategy to win over votes of the Southern conservatives is hard to interpret in a positive light.
Simply saying he failed to mention the slain civil rights leader makes it sound like an accidental oversight. I don't disagree that Reagan held some strong beliefs about states rights (highway money aside), but I do disagree in an inocuous (sp?)interpretation of the choice of Phila, MS. Giving a speech about States Rights in that venue has a clear context that allows the speaker to not actually say anything too insidious while courting the Southern white vote.
This is a case where the bloody shirt is literally appropriate to wave. Philadelphia, PA is a place to kick off a campaign to wrap your candidate in Indepedence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Philadelphia, MS and states rights as a campaign kickoff is a way to get Southern votes away from a Georgia democrat incumbent.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 13 2004, 09:50 PM)
And for those like myself who recall Reagan as a President who regarded civil rights and people of color with benign neglect at best and overt hostility at worse, the sugarcoated reminiscing and longing for the "good ol' days" when it was Morning In America for white people and Mourning in America for everybody else was hard to take.
Well nighttimer, I refer you to the MLK riots, a time when RR was Governor of California. That state suffered no riots or major disturbances while so much of the rest of the country burned. No mere stroke of luck.
It is no less daunting a task today than it was back then to find accurate reporting from the liberal media when it comes to conservative policy-makers. However, the truth does have a way of eventually surfacing as so much of it did during the past week. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "wow, I didn't know that" come from the lips of our younger citizens during the funeral coverage I'd be a rich man. It's a shame it took a great man's death to force the media to let some of the truth be reported, but it doesn't come as any great surprise.
One of the clearest indications of RR's belief in the dignity of all was his welfare reform. He understood how demeaning it had become and he initiated change. That change was carried from the statehouse in California to the Capitol in Washington. We are a better nation as a result.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 14 2004, 08:22 PM)
The Gipper waged campaigns deeply rooted in racist rhetoric - "black welfare queens" - to attract white voters to his campaign. By using "state's rights" in his 1980 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were brutally murdered 16 years before, Reagan was deliberately using racially charged shibboleth to connect to his audience.
While such a phrase today is relatively ambiguous, 24 years ago, people knew its implication regarding race, especially in Mississippi.
Reagan also attempted to secure a tax exemption for Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The university was not granted exemption status because of its segregationist policies.
Bonzo's bedtime buddy also claimed the 1965 Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South." Funny how a law that allowed black people in the South to have a political voice was "humiliating," while keeping them from voting was good.
[URL=http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/06/09/40c692c0bd6e1]
While such a phrase today is relatively ambiguous, 24 years ago, people knew its implication regarding race, especially in Mississippi.
Reagan also attempted to secure a tax exemption for Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The university was not granted exemption status because of its segregationist policies.
Bonzo's bedtime buddy also claimed the 1965 Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South." Funny how a law that allowed black people in the South to have a political voice was "humiliating," while keeping them from voting was good.
[URL=http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/06/09/40c692c0bd6e1]
nighttimer, you are quoting an opinion piece as a source. This is a column with a byline and photo that indicate the author may not have even been alive during the Reagan administration. and the columnist does not source or defend his mis-statements. most of all, here is the first sentence. let's all judge this guy's objectivity, shall we:
QUOTE
Public giving Reagan free pass
by Brandon Niemeyer
DM Columnist
June 09, 2004
The anti-Christ is dead. That was my initial reaction Saturday afternoon at a Cincinnati hotel bar to the news of former President Ronald Reagan's death.
by Brandon Niemeyer
DM Columnist
June 09, 2004
The anti-Christ is dead. That was my initial reaction Saturday afternoon at a Cincinnati hotel bar to the news of former President Ronald Reagan's death.
This is insulting. This idiot also asserts that 'Americans are still worse off 20 years later due to Reagan's policies.' I'll focus on economics, since Brandon clearly is not old enough to remember living in a time where we all feared nuclear holocaust, Western Europe feared invasion, and millions lived under the thumb of communism.
Home ownership - all time high. Interest rates - all time low. During his term, inflation dropped 10%. If you 'lived through it' then maybe you remember not being able to buy a house, because the mortgage rates were in the teens? I refer you to my previous posts on black economic gains during Reagan's term. While it's a nice opinion to say that he wasn't interested in helping black people, don't let that get in the way of the fact that he DID help black people. To me, that's more important.
As for Abernathy shaking hands with Jesse Helms, I don't find this nearly as insulting as I do Robert Byrd being a respectable senior senator.
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.
The difference between Senator Byrd and Senator Helms is that while in his misspent youth Byrd was a member of the KKK, he repudiated his racist past and has compiled a strong record on civil rights and liberal issues. Helms was, is and remains one of the most overtly racist individuals to ever occupy the U.S. Senate and has not retreated one inch from his segregationist roots.
Yes, I quoted an opinion piece as a source, carlitoswhey. Your point is? I acknowledge that the author was stating his opinion. However, he also included factual statements in that opinon---same as most of us do on this board. Are you implying that only those who personally experienced the Reagan Years can offer an opinion on them?
As to the economic gains blacks supposedly made during the Reagan Administration, that has to be balanced against the cuts made in programs that poor and working class blacks needed.
Fiscal year (In millions of dollars) 1981- 1988
Training and employment $9,106 to $2,887
Energy assistance $1850 to $1162
Health services, including community health centers and care for the homeless $856 to $814
Legal Services $321 to $232
Compensatory Education $3,545 to $3,291
Housing assistance for elderly $797 to $422
Community services block grant (funds local anti-poverty agencies) $525 to $290
(Source: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) http://www.cbpp.org/
Additionally, no excuse justifies Reagan's support of the South African government of P.W. Botha. That travesty could merit a separate topic all its own.
Yes, I quoted an opinion piece as a source, carlitoswhey. Your point is? I acknowledge that the author was stating his opinion. However, he also included factual statements in that opinon---same as most of us do on this board. Are you implying that only those who personally experienced the Reagan Years can offer an opinion on them?
As to the economic gains blacks supposedly made during the Reagan Administration, that has to be balanced against the cuts made in programs that poor and working class blacks needed.
Fiscal year (In millions of dollars) 1981- 1988
Training and employment $9,106 to $2,887
Energy assistance $1850 to $1162
Health services, including community health centers and care for the homeless $856 to $814
Legal Services $321 to $232
Compensatory Education $3,545 to $3,291
Housing assistance for elderly $797 to $422
Community services block grant (funds local anti-poverty agencies) $525 to $290
(Source: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) http://www.cbpp.org/
Additionally, no excuse justifies Reagan's support of the South African government of P.W. Botha. That travesty could merit a separate topic all its own.
QUOTE
Home ownership - all time high. Interest rates - all time low
I assume you are speaking about the year 2004.
Interest rates aren't at 'all time low'. They are at historic levels,but not the lowest in history.
As for home ownership. Yes it is at an all time high but also Homes Foreclosures are at an all time high.
Also there are 'interest only loans' which doesn't make economic sense for first time buyers(who are the group that has pushed up the sale of homes) since they gain no equity in the house. As of now housing prices have appreciated at a high rate, which probably won't be sustainable. If housing prices ever stagnate or don't appreciate more than inflation, all of the home owners will owe more on the house than what it is worth.
In other words, net worth of those homes will be negative.
Lenders are more lenient on making loans than any other time in history. Lenders are approving mortgages for people that are making the payments by 'the skin of their teeth'. The end result will be default.
Lots of average workers are barely keeping up with inflation and in many cases the cost of groceries,gasoline,etc. have forced them to the brink of foreclosures. That is when their whole world falls apart.
Home ownership at a all time high is just a false sense of security.
Personal income (after inflation) must increase before credit-related foreclosures decrease.
QUOTE
Additionally, no excuse justifies Reagan's support of the South African government of P.W. Botha.
"America's view of apartheid is simple and straightforward: We believe it is wrong. We condemn it. And we are united in hoping for the day when apartheid will be no more."
Ronald Reagan -- Sept. 9, 1985
South African President Thabo Mbeki, who also attended the funeral, remembered Reagan's significance to the eventual ending of apartheid in an interview with Juan Williams, broadcast on National Public Radio.
QUOTE
"For South Africans ... for those of us who were part of the struggle against apartheid, it was actually during Reagan's presidency [that] the United States government started dealing with the ANC [African National Congress]," Mbeki said. "... It was very important because the South African regime had been counting on the continued isolation of the ANC by the developed Western world, as terrorist organization,' because that justified their campaign of repression in South Africa against the ANC.
"Whatever else might have happened before that, with regard to the role and the place of the U.S. government and President Reagan, those of us who were involved in that struggle can't forget that. You'd gotten to that turning point which proved to have been the start of the decline of the apartheid regime in South Africa."
"Whatever else might have happened before that, with regard to the role and the place of the U.S. government and President Reagan, those of us who were involved in that struggle can't forget that. You'd gotten to that turning point which proved to have been the start of the decline of the apartheid regime in South Africa."
President Reagan instituted limited sanctions against South Africa. Reagan banned the sale of computers to South African security agencies, barred most loans to the Pretoria government, halted the importation of the Krugerrand, South Africa's gold coin, and stopped exports of nuclear technology until South Africa signs an accord to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
This was done via executive order:
QUOTE
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12532 — September 9, 1985
I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, find that the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat......
SEC. 7. The Secretary of State shall establish, pursuant to appropriate legal authority, an Advisory Committee on South Africa to provide recommendations on measures to encourage peaceful change in South Africa. The Advisory Committee shall provide its initial report within twelve months.
I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, find that the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat......
SEC. 7. The Secretary of State shall establish, pursuant to appropriate legal authority, an Advisory Committee on South Africa to provide recommendations on measures to encourage peaceful change in South Africa. The Advisory Committee shall provide its initial report within twelve months.
The rest of the Executive Order can be read Here
I find it funny that people still refer to "White America" and "Black America" as if they exist on separate continents.
Reagan's policies were color blind, as all policies should be. That being said, "Black America" benefitted as much as any other group.
Thanks for quoting an article that begins with "The Anti-Christ is dead..." though Nightimer. That one statement robs the entire article of any semblance of credibility. Sorry that I couldn't read an article from an author who chooses to use such unbiased rhetoric . The other articles were interesting reads, however.
Reagan appointed Clarence Thomas, the hated man who many black leaders view as a traitor to his race. I guess that makes him a racist, by some standards. On the same note, he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the US Supreme Court. Guess that makes him anti-woman, too.
To demonize Reagan because his war on drugs targeted the black community is dubious, at best. I guess black leaders would rather have no police protection to fall back on... Or perhaps a libertarian legalization of these drugs that have undermined the black and poor communities for decades.
Quotes like this one:
from blackworld make good rhetoric, but little sense. So Reagan was bad because of what Democrats that voted for Reagan think?
It seems to me that this lashing out against Reagan stems from the fact that Black America identifies itself as poor America. It has nothing to do with Reagan's policies, but has everything to do with how black America views itself. "Black America" refuses to accept that the federal government has nothing, whatsoever to do with its plight. "Black America" refuses to accept that the federal government is not keeping "Black America" under its boot. If Reagan was so bad, how do they treat other Presidents, like Clinton who presided over the reduction of aid to poor children? Welfare Research FAQ
The fact that the leadership of "Black America" (the Jesse Jacksons, Julian Bonds, Kweisi Mfumes and the rest) continues to point the finger rather than proposing solutions is a huge part of the problem. It is easy to criticize what others are doing. It is hard to lead and to be criticized for it.
I think the burden of proof is on the detractors, to somehow prove that Reagan sought to exclude blacks from the American dream. Cite some statistics to prove that black suffered unduly under Reagan. Cite some racist policies of Reagan.
Conservatives are way too quick to go on the defensive when it comes to their policies in regards to "Black America". For me (and most Conservatives), there is only one America. Poor Blacks are not separate from poor Whites. Does anyone seriously think that Reagan held poor Black America under his thumb while seeking to elevate poor White America? The burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Reagan's policies were color blind, as all policies should be. That being said, "Black America"
benefitted as much as any other group.Thanks for quoting an article that begins with "The Anti-Christ is dead..." though Nightimer. That one statement robs the entire article of any semblance of credibility. Sorry that I couldn't read an article from an author who chooses to use such unbiased rhetoric
. The other articles were interesting reads, however.Reagan appointed Clarence Thomas, the hated man who many black leaders view as a traitor to his race.
I guess that makes him a racist, by some standards. On the same note, he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the US Supreme Court. Guess that makes him anti-woman, too.To demonize Reagan because his war on drugs targeted the black community is dubious, at best. I guess black leaders would rather have no police protection to fall back on... Or perhaps a libertarian legalization of these drugs that have undermined the black and poor communities for decades.
Quotes like this one:
QUOTE
Remember the Reagan Democrats? Those disaffected working class white voters who were most responsible for Reagan's re-election in 1984? A group of democratic operatives interviewed a number of white working class men and women outside of Detroit, in order to see what made Reagan Democrats vote for Reagan. Every social ill America faced, every problem of the Democratic Party was blamed on one group of people: African Americans. Why did America lose its moral standing? Black laziness. Why were Americans jobless? Black racial preferences. (I'm not quite sure how black people could both steal jobs from real Americans, and be too lazy to get jobs in the first place at the same time, but that's another story.) So even though these Reagan supporters detested Reagan's actual policy preferences, they gladly supported Reagan because they felt he stood up for them against the various ills they explicitly associated with black people.
from blackworld make good rhetoric, but little sense. So Reagan was bad because of what Democrats that voted for Reagan think?
It seems to me that this lashing out against Reagan stems from the fact that Black America identifies itself as poor America. It has nothing to do with Reagan's policies, but has everything to do with how black America views itself. "Black America" refuses to accept that the federal government has nothing, whatsoever to do with its plight. "Black America" refuses to accept that the federal government is not keeping "Black America" under its boot. If Reagan was so bad, how do they treat other Presidents, like Clinton who presided over the reduction of aid to poor children? Welfare Research FAQ
QUOTE
The proportion of poor children whose families received cash welfare declined rapidly from 57 percent in 1995 to 41 percent in 1998. SOURCE: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Changes Since 1995 in the Safety Net's Impact on Child Poverty, December 1999 . URL: http://www.cbpp.org/12-23-99wel.htm.
The fact that the leadership of "Black America" (the Jesse Jacksons, Julian Bonds, Kweisi Mfumes and the rest) continues to point the finger rather than proposing solutions is a huge part of the problem. It is easy to criticize what others are doing. It is hard to lead and to be criticized for it.
I think the burden of proof is on the detractors, to somehow prove that Reagan sought to exclude blacks from the American dream. Cite some statistics to prove that black suffered unduly under Reagan. Cite some racist policies of Reagan.
Conservatives are way too quick to go on the defensive when it comes to their policies in regards to "Black America". For me (and most Conservatives), there is only one America. Poor Blacks are not separate from poor Whites. Does anyone seriously think that Reagan held poor Black America under his thumb while seeking to elevate poor White America? The burden of proof is on you to prove it.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 15 2004, 01:02 PM)
Fiscal year (In millions of dollars) 1981- 1988
Training and employment $9,106 to $2,887
Energy assistance $1850 to $1162
Health services, including community health centers and care for the homeless $856 to $814
Legal Services $321 to $232
Compensatory Education $3,545 to $3,291
Housing assistance for elderly $797 to $422
Community services block grant (funds local anti-poverty agencies) $525 to $290
(Source: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) http://www.cbpp.org/
Additionally, no excuse justifies Reagan's support of the South African government of P.W. Botha. That travesty could merit a separate topic all its own.
Well nighttimer, a quick review of the stats you provided gives me reason to applaud RR even more. It seems to me he was being true to his belief that we're better off if we earn our way rather than have it handed to us. I do believe that this position is shared by the great majority of Americans as witnessed by his landslide victory.
The growing number of blacks who are tossing off the chains held by the Democrat party is heartening and will help make America a better place. RR helped to initiate that movement and is to be congratulated.
We are gradually returning to the days when we called ourselves Americans first, last and always. We will no longer accept those who try to attach shame to love of God and country. Try as they might they haven't succeeded. They did their best to divide and conquer this great nation with their social engineering and entitlements that only served to keep people down. This was the only way they themselves could remain on top since they didn't have the strength of character to earn their own way.
RR opened the door and led the way for a return to a land of opportunity. For everyone. Everyone willing to work for it.
Actually, Amlord, I found the "anti-Christ" slam by Mr. Niemeyer to be offensive as well as was the "honky" crack in the link to The Black World Today, but in the former case I was intrigued by a white male's observations on Reagan and race. In the latter case the intent was to illustrate the level of antipathy that exists in reaction to the Reagan Revisionism.
Unfortunately, the inflammatory "fighting words" blunted the effectiveness of the author's assertions. C'est la vie.
Does anyone seriously think that Reagan held poor Black America under his thumb while seeking to elevate poor White America? The burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Well, I'll tell you what Amlord. We can sit in front of our computers and you can quote your sources and name-drop the one or two black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a swell guy and I can quote my sources and name-drop the many black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a jerk. All we will prove is how many web sites we can link to and how much free time we have on our hands.
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
Now for the "revisionism" part of this thread and thanks for adding your contribution to it Passion 51.
The growing number of blacks who are tossing off the chains held by the Democrat party is heartening and will help make America a better place. RR helped to initiate that movement and is to be congratulated.
"Tossing off the chains of the Democratic Party?" Where are all those runaway slaves going? Surely not into the loving arms of Ronnie Reagan's Republican Party.
Black Republicans Question Party's Commitment
"I saw some hope in Ed Gillespie as the new chairman of the Republican Party, that he would recognize the need to make the Republican Party inclusive and open
up its doors to Black voters and organizations. But in order to achieve that goal, they've got to, from the very beginning, make it known to Black voters that they stand for issues, that they support issues that affect the lives of Black people. The Republican Party should be far more representative of the entire population. And it doesn't have that."
---Former U.S. Senator Edward Brooke
http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article....ies&NewsID=3348
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe can call upon numerous black politicians, activists and celebrities to rally African-American support for John Kerry. Ed Gillespie has Don King.
Yeah, that's a fair fight. An ex-con who's exploited more black boxers than I care to remember and killed two men. If that's part of RR's legacy you're welcome to it.
Unfortunately, the inflammatory "fighting words" blunted the effectiveness of the author's assertions. C'est la vie.
Does anyone seriously think that Reagan held poor Black America under his thumb while seeking to elevate poor White America? The burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Well, I'll tell you what Amlord. We can sit in front of our computers and you can quote your sources and name-drop the one or two black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a swell guy and I can quote my sources and name-drop the many black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a jerk. All we will prove is how many web sites we can link to and how much free time we have on our hands.
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
Now for the "revisionism" part of this thread and thanks for adding your contribution to it Passion 51.
The growing number of blacks who are tossing off the chains held by the Democrat party is heartening and will help make America a better place. RR helped to initiate that movement and is to be congratulated.
"Tossing off the chains of the Democratic Party?" Where are all those runaway slaves going? Surely not into the loving arms of Ronnie Reagan's Republican Party.
Black Republicans Question Party's Commitment
"I saw some hope in Ed Gillespie as the new chairman of the Republican Party, that he would recognize the need to make the Republican Party inclusive and open
up its doors to Black voters and organizations. But in order to achieve that goal, they've got to, from the very beginning, make it known to Black voters that they stand for issues, that they support issues that affect the lives of Black people. The Republican Party should be far more representative of the entire population. And it doesn't have that."
---Former U.S. Senator Edward Brooke
http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article....ies&NewsID=3348
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe can call upon numerous black politicians, activists and celebrities to rally African-American support for John Kerry. Ed Gillespie has Don King.
Yeah, that's a fair fight. An ex-con who's exploited more black boxers than I care to remember and killed two men. If that's part of RR's legacy you're welcome to it.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 16 2004, 08:47 AM)
Well, I'll tell you what Amlord. We can sit in front of our computers and you can quote your sources and name-drop the one or two black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a swell guy and I can quote my sources and name-drop the many black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a jerk. All we will prove is how many web sites we can link to and how much free time we have on our hands.
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
...
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe can call upon numerous black politicians, activists and celebrities to rally African-American support for John Kerry. Ed Gillespie has Don King.
Yeah, that's a fair fight. An ex-con who's exploited more black boxers than I care to remember and killed two men. If that's part of RR's legacy you're welcome to it.
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
...
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe can call upon numerous black politicians, activists and celebrities to rally African-American support for John Kerry. Ed Gillespie has Don King.
Yeah, that's a fair fight. An ex-con who's exploited more black boxers than I care to remember and killed two men. If that's part of RR's legacy you're welcome to it.
Perception is more important than reality - this frustrates and confuses me. No question that racism is alive and well, and hinders achievement in various ways, but saying that Reagan personally encouraged or exacerbated racism seems like blaming someone to make ourselves feel good. Like saying Reagan caused AIDS or whatever.
Example:
Reagan was a racist. He hated welfare (thought welfare was a force undermining the family), and he was wishy-washy on South Africa. He launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, made oblique statements about states rights in the context of 'new federalism' then flew to NYC to speak to the Urban League about how he would continue to support affirmative action. And he was the first president to openly deal with the African National Congress. And he tried to secure a tax exemption for Bob Jones University.
Clinton was not a racist. He was our first black president because he was poor, from Arkansas, plays the sax, feels your pain. And yet .... HE signed into law real substantive welfare reform. Symbolically speaking, he remembered black churches burning in Arkansas when it didn't happen, remembered walking from LaGuardia to Harlem on his way back from London when it was not possible to fly there from London, and various other symbolic gestures that never did anything to help anyone, except for their feelings. And, while he didn't want a tax exemption for Bob Jones U, he did pander to many unions who were under the thumb of the mafia, who seem to be mostly racists based on the way they talk in movies.
Is the symbolism that much more important than the substance? Is it that we don't seek color-blindness, but that we really seek symbolism? I'm not trying to start a Clinton vs. Reagan point, I only put the truth-stretching examples in to highlight some symbolic actions which were clearly symbolism only, not substance, as they weren't even true. I won't contest that there are greater numbers of black celebrities and columnists on the left, I merely question that they are right, er, correct.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 16 2004, 09:47 AM)
Well, I'll tell you what Amlord. We can sit in front of our computers and you can quote your sources and name-drop the one or two black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a swell guy and I can quote my sources and name-drop the many black "leaders" who thought Reagan was a jerk. All we will prove is how many web sites we can link to and how much free time we have on our hands.
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
There is no burden of proof on me convince you how wrong Reagan was on race and how lousy a president he was for black people. I was there. I lived through it. I voted against the man twice and his vice-president once and looking forward to voting against his vice-president's son twice.
So, I'll throw it back at you Amlord. There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Why don't YOU go and talk with some black people Amlord? I'm confident that you'll find more that didn't like Reagan than you will those that did. Don't take my word for it. At the end of the day we're arguing perceptions and the overwhelming perception is Reagan didn't give two toots in a tornado about race, civil rights and equality. That "perception" trumps your "reality."
I don't know what kind of assumptions you make about others, but it says alot that "Black America" views Reagan differently than "poor White America".
I grew up in poor, urban America. My parents both worked multiple jobs. I was in the abysmal Cleveland public schools during Reagan's tenure. And my parents, although lifelong Democrats until that time, loved Ronald Reagan. He gave people hope in a time of crisis.
When my parents were able to refinance their house from the 18.5% interest rate to a 12% interest rate, I clearly remember my mother cautioning me about being in debt. About how the banks can control your life. The lower interest rates were one of the greatest boons to the lower classes.
It just boggles my mind that a poor white family viewed the policies of Reagan from a different lens than a poor black family might. But as you said "perception trumps reality" And not always in a good way.
There's my anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth.
Well, there you have it. A poor white family gains succor from Ronald Reagan. My family was not poor, but neither were we wealthy. My mom and dad just kept their heads above water and did their best. But there is a cultural divide in America that at times becomes a yawning chasm.
No one personifies that divide better than Reagan. He was no hero of mine and few were the times when I heard anyone say a nice thing about him in dinnertime conversations.
As I said before, Reagan was a hero but not a hero for all and certainly not for most Black Americans. He came in promising a conservative revolution and he delivered on many of his promises.
But I recall thinking back in November 1980 that for the next four years very little regarding progressive thinking on race was going to be coming out the White House. On that score Reagan didn't disappoint.
That whites would view much of this as irrelevant, even whining or sour grapes on the part of communities of color, is only proof positive that for many if not most such folks, the opinions of, and even the humanity of black and brown persons with whom they share a nation is of secondary importance to the fact that Reagan - as many have been gushing these past few days – “made them feel good again.”
But how can healthy people feel good about a leader who does and says the kinds of things mentioned above? Obviously the answer is by denying that racism matters, or that its victims count for anything. Even more cynically, it is no doubt true that for many of them, it was precisely Reagan’s policy of hostility to people of color that made them feel good in the first place. By 1980, most whites were already tiring of civil rights and were looking for someone who would take their minds off such troubling concepts as racism, and instead implore them to “greatness,” however defined, and “pride,” however defined, and flag waving.
Whites have long been more enamored of style than substance, of fiction than fact, of fantasy than reality. It’s why we have clung so tenaciously to the utterly preposterous version of our national history peddled by textbooks for so long; and it’sa why we get so angry when anyone tries to offer a correction.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_wise_reagan.html
This desperate need to cling to the selective memory of Reagan as a towering icon who never erred, included all Americans in his "Reagan Revolution" and was more beneficial than blind in his relations with non-white people ranks just behind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as fanciful adolescent fantasies most of us should have outgrown by now.
Reagan was a man. He was also a politician. He played the greatest role of his life when he convinced the majority of people that he was running the country instead of being led around by the nose by the Ed Messes, Don Regans, Michael Deavers and William Caseys of the time.
In The Matrix the hero is offered a choice between the red pill which will return them to the imaginary world where the dreams are sweet and life is a safe fantasy and the blue pill which brings awareness of the terrible reality of the world he lives in.
Which pill would you choose?
No one personifies that divide better than Reagan. He was no hero of mine and few were the times when I heard anyone say a nice thing about him in dinnertime conversations.
As I said before, Reagan was a hero but not a hero for all and certainly not for most Black Americans. He came in promising a conservative revolution and he delivered on many of his promises.
But I recall thinking back in November 1980 that for the next four years very little regarding progressive thinking on race was going to be coming out the White House. On that score Reagan didn't disappoint.
That whites would view much of this as irrelevant, even whining or sour grapes on the part of communities of color, is only proof positive that for many if not most such folks, the opinions of, and even the humanity of black and brown persons with whom they share a nation is of secondary importance to the fact that Reagan - as many have been gushing these past few days – “made them feel good again.”
But how can healthy people feel good about a leader who does and says the kinds of things mentioned above? Obviously the answer is by denying that racism matters, or that its victims count for anything. Even more cynically, it is no doubt true that for many of them, it was precisely Reagan’s policy of hostility to people of color that made them feel good in the first place. By 1980, most whites were already tiring of civil rights and were looking for someone who would take their minds off such troubling concepts as racism, and instead implore them to “greatness,” however defined, and “pride,” however defined, and flag waving.
Whites have long been more enamored of style than substance, of fiction than fact, of fantasy than reality. It’s why we have clung so tenaciously to the utterly preposterous version of our national history peddled by textbooks for so long; and it’sa why we get so angry when anyone tries to offer a correction.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_wise_reagan.html
This desperate need to cling to the selective memory of Reagan as a towering icon who never erred, included all Americans in his "Reagan Revolution" and was more beneficial than blind in his relations with non-white people ranks just behind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as fanciful adolescent fantasies most of us should have outgrown by now.
Reagan was a man. He was also a politician. He played the greatest role of his life when he convinced the majority of people that he was running the country instead of being led around by the nose by the Ed Messes, Don Regans, Michael Deavers and William Caseys of the time.
In The Matrix the hero is offered a choice between the red pill which will return them to the imaginary world where the dreams are sweet and life is a safe fantasy and the blue pill which brings awareness of the terrible reality of the world he lives in.
Which pill would you choose?
NT, I usually hold your posts in the highest esteem for your tendency of logical discourse. But this time you've let me down. In an earlier post you stated:
Amlord provided anecdotal evidence, and you seem summarily dismiss it. And then go on to quote a talking head. Maybe I'm just reading your reply wrong.
Even though you state quite correctly that there is a great divide on the perception of the Reagan administration, you are sounding like your perception is the only possible conclusion for anyone with a shred of intelligence.
I could easily make the same claims of the desperate need to cling to the selective memory of Reagan as a drooling idiot who always erred.....
as being fairly tales on the lines of the tooth fairy and the Great Pumpkin.
And funny how liberals want to always claim that republican presidents are never their own men, simply sheep led around by sinister handlers. Of course they would never stand for that thrown back at them, and god forbid they should provide any evidence to the fact.
I certainly agree with you that there are die hard Reaganites who worship his graven image. But I'm sure you are impartial enough to see that there is the opposite side of the coin.
And yes, I do know which pill I would choose, I'll let you guess which one.......
QUOTE
There are times when anecdotal evidence works far better than all the talking heads and self-styled experts pontificating. This is one of those times. Especially when we're rapping about something so subjective as how people feel about a man's life.
Amlord provided anecdotal evidence, and you seem summarily dismiss it. And then go on to quote a talking head. Maybe I'm just reading your reply wrong.
Even though you state quite correctly that there is a great divide on the perception of the Reagan administration, you are sounding like your perception is the only possible conclusion for anyone with a shred of intelligence.
I could easily make the same claims of the desperate need to cling to the selective memory of Reagan as a drooling idiot who always erred.....
as being fairly tales on the lines of the tooth fairy and the Great Pumpkin.
And funny how liberals want to always claim that republican presidents are never their own men, simply sheep led around by sinister handlers. Of course they would never stand for that thrown back at them, and god forbid they should provide any evidence to the fact.
I certainly agree with you that there are die hard Reaganites who worship his graven image. But I'm sure you are impartial enough to see that there is the opposite side of the coin.
And yes, I do know which pill I would choose, I'll let you guess which one.......
I'm not casually dismissing Amlord and his sincere belief that his family benefited from the policies of the Reagan Administration, Dontreadonme. I trust that for him Reagan deserves the admiration and adulation he has received since his passing. I would never give the back of my hand to something that is obviously so heartfelt.
No, my perception of Reagan is my own. It is shared by a lot of people whom I share a racial category with. In some ways I wish I did understand why Reagan is so revered. For me that beguiling smile is the smile of the crocodile just before he shows you his wickedly sharp teeth.
Nor do I believe every Republican President is a vassal to rich and powerful men and corporations. By the time any politician reaches the level where he can be considered Presidential caliber, he's been bought and sold to someone. Bill Clinton had Marc Rich. Lyndon Johnson had Bobby Baker. Somebody will own a piece of John Kerry if he makes it to the White House. It's the nature of the beast.
No, my perception of Reagan is my own. It is shared by a lot of people whom I share a racial category with. In some ways I wish I did understand why Reagan is so revered. For me that beguiling smile is the smile of the crocodile just before he shows you his wickedly sharp teeth.
Nor do I believe every Republican President is a vassal to rich and powerful men and corporations. By the time any politician reaches the level where he can be considered Presidential caliber, he's been bought and sold to someone. Bill Clinton had Marc Rich. Lyndon Johnson had Bobby Baker. Somebody will own a piece of John Kerry if he makes it to the White House. It's the nature of the beast.
I decided not come in earlier because this turned into a race debate, I post late, but Reagan was horrible on womens issues as well.
I go back to the original question of "Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
In the Reagan times 'we' who were young believed Reagan represented the old white man, completely out of touch with what was happening in a progressive america of the time, thats just opinion, and as Nightimer put it -- perception. Perception is powerful since we wanted something better and nothing looked like progress, it looked like trying to go backwards in history and try to capture something long lost, a white rich male heyday that had been fractured by the 60's.
But, I will go beyond perception to realities.
R. Reagan was the first president in 40 years to oppose the Equal Rights Ammendment which was first presented in 1923.
Ronald Reagan did not just appoint Clarence Thomas to any abject post. He appointed him to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with investigating sex discrimination in the workplace..... a man who did not believe sex or race discrimination existed in charge with a directive to investigate "by the book".
.
http://www.womenenews.com/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1866
At that time we were inundated with Reagans 'family values' propaganda, and "war on drugs" as 'wag the dog' nevermind that noone knew what the hell he was talking about since not only were our original families in disarray, divorce rates and single motherhood were at an all time high coming out of the "free-sex' 60's. We knew the government was involved in drug smuggling and terrorist training to Central and South America , as well as supporting Saddam Hussein in the war on Iran. The bull of a 'happy american patriot' was a complete disconnect with the mainstream reality at the time. There was nothing spectacular with Reagans policies, except that he hated the poor and the worker and was the most anti-female president in the 20th century. I wont go into abortion policies since that is a personal issue.
I remember the closings of factories in the mid-west, Reagan said that informing employees of coming closings ahead of time would be unfair to business, as entire towns closed down, when Detroit closed down. I dont think anyone really remembers this. I was in Texas when thousands of men emigrated from the north to feed their families, when the farms in the mid-west folded after Reagans visit to be taken over by corporations. He actually stood in the fields with farmers, then went back to Washington and voted to screw them out of their land.
The Reagan "era' was much like the Great Depression. Nice revisionist history for some, but not so great for those who actually lived it as workers, women or monorities ..or anybody but the top o'th'trickle down, which I have always thought of as being urinated on.
I go back to the original question of "Was Ronald Reagan a President for ALL of America or just part of it?
In the Reagan times 'we' who were young believed Reagan represented the old white man, completely out of touch with what was happening in a progressive america of the time, thats just opinion, and as Nightimer put it -- perception. Perception is powerful since we wanted something better and nothing looked like progress, it looked like trying to go backwards in history and try to capture something long lost, a white rich male heyday that had been fractured by the 60's.
But, I will go beyond perception to realities.
R. Reagan was the first president in 40 years to oppose the Equal Rights Ammendment which was first presented in 1923.
QUOTE
The Republicans had been the first major party to champion constitutional equality for women, putting the Equal Rights Amendment in their platform in 1940. Ronnie ended that. At his bidding, the ERA disappeared from the GOP platform at the 1980 convention that nominated him to be the party's standard-bearer.
Ronald Reagan did not just appoint Clarence Thomas to any abject post. He appointed him to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with investigating sex discrimination in the workplace..... a man who did not believe sex or race discrimination existed in charge with a directive to investigate "by the book".
.
QUOTE
Even while sex discrimination claims rose 25 percent during the 1980s, the Reagan administration cut the EEOC budget in half, slashed its caseload to a third of its former size. That was code for delay, drag out and drop cases.
http://www.womenenews.com/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1866
At that time we were inundated with Reagans 'family values' propaganda, and "war on drugs" as 'wag the dog' nevermind that noone knew what the hell he was talking about since not only were our original families in disarray, divorce rates and single motherhood were at an all time high coming out of the "free-sex' 60's. We knew the government was involved in drug smuggling and terrorist training to Central and South America , as well as supporting Saddam Hussein in the war on Iran. The bull of a 'happy american patriot' was a complete disconnect with the mainstream reality at the time. There was nothing spectacular with Reagans policies, except that he hated the poor and the worker and was the most anti-female president in the 20th century. I wont go into abortion policies since that is a personal issue.
I remember the closings of factories in the mid-west, Reagan said that informing employees of coming closings ahead of time would be unfair to business, as entire towns closed down, when Detroit closed down. I dont think anyone really remembers this. I was in Texas when thousands of men emigrated from the north to feed their families, when the farms in the mid-west folded after Reagans visit to be taken over by corporations. He actually stood in the fields with farmers, then went back to Washington and voted to screw them out of their land.
The Reagan "era' was much like the Great Depression. Nice revisionist history for some, but not so great for those who actually lived it as workers, women or monorities ..or anybody but the top o'th'trickle down, which I have always thought of as being urinated on.
Artemise, I will ask you for the same thing I asked from Nighttimer: statistics to back up your rhetoric.
We know that Reagan had strong conservative views. That is a given. But how did his policies set back the cause of Women's rights?
ERA was dead in the water long before Reagan took office. So why hadn't it passed before? It passed Congress in 1972 and had a seven year window for passing the States. Time ran out in 1979, when 35 out of the necessary 38 states had ratified. An extension was granted until 1982, but no additional states ratified during that time. The Amendment has been re-proposed in every Congress since then, but has not passed.
But let's look at what Reagan DID do for minorities:
as of December 3, 1981, out of some 2,865 non-career positions filled by that time, President Reagan had appointed 877 women, 80 Hispanics (many of them, of course, also women), and 130 blacks...
Statistics about minorities: The good that Reagan did for black America
It is easy to say that the Reagan years were bad for blacks, or for women. It is harder to back it up with facts.
[By the way: Reagan did not launch his Presidential bid in Philadelphia, MS, but at the annual County Fair in Neshoba, Mississippi--a traditional campaigning place in Mississippi. It is 6 miles from Philadelphia. The characterization of it being in Philadelphia, MS is just a clever way of disparaging Reagan without actually bringing any real substance. Everyone campaigns in at that fair and the characterization that Reagan doing so was out of the ordinary is simply wrong.]
We know that Reagan had strong conservative views. That is a given. But how did his policies set back the cause of Women's rights?
ERA was dead in the water long before Reagan took office. So why hadn't it passed before?
It passed Congress in 1972 and had a seven year window for passing the States. Time ran out in 1979, when 35 out of the necessary 38 states had ratified. An extension was granted until 1982, but no additional states ratified during that time. The Amendment has been re-proposed in every Congress since then, but has not passed. But let's look at what Reagan DID do for minorities:
as of December 3, 1981, out of some 2,865 non-career positions filled by that time, President Reagan had appointed 877 women, 80 Hispanics (many of them, of course, also women), and 130 blacks...
Statistics about minorities: The good that Reagan did for black America
QUOTE
But the reality is, the 1980s, with a conservative, free-market Republican in the White House, were a boom time for black America.
Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.
In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.
All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.
Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.
In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.
All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.
QUOTE
Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.
During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.
Even though the number of college-aged blacks decreased during much of the decade, black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987, according to the Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, the 1980s saw an improvement in the black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.
On balance, then, the majority of black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.
During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.
Even though the number of college-aged blacks decreased during much of the decade, black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987, according to the Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, the 1980s saw an improvement in the black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.
On balance, then, the majority of black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.
It is easy to say that the Reagan years were bad for blacks, or for women. It is harder to back it up with facts.
[By the way: Reagan did not launch his Presidential bid in Philadelphia, MS, but at the annual County Fair in Neshoba, Mississippi--a traditional campaigning place in Mississippi. It is 6 miles from Philadelphia. The characterization of it being in Philadelphia, MS is just a clever way of disparaging Reagan without actually bringing any real substance. Everyone campaigns in at that fair and the characterization that Reagan doing so was out of the ordinary is simply wrong.]
Even though you beat me to the punch Amlord, I'm glad you brought up the Neshoba County Fair. Not that it will matter to many.
Nor will the fact that he spoke to the Urban League in New York the next day. Where he said: ''For too many people, conservative has come to mean antipoor, antiblack, and antidisadvantaged. Perhaps some of you question whether a conservative really feels sympathy and compassion for the victims of social and economic misfortune and of racial discrimination.... If you think of me as the caricatured conservative, then I ask you to listen carefully and maybe you'll be surprised by our broad areas of agreement.''
And his message to the Urban League in 1984:
Message to the Annual Conference of the National Urban League in Cleveland, Ohio
July 30, 1984
It is a great pleasure for me to send greetings to all the members of the National Urban League as you gather for your annual conference.
The prospect for urban America is bright today because of the strength of the ongoing economic expansion. The rapid decline in unemployment, coupled with a very low level of inflation, has brought a renewal of prosperity and economic opportunity throughout most parts of our Nation. But there are still some areas and groups which have not fully shared in the general recovery. These areas and groups need an extra boost to join the rest of the Nation, and that is why I have proposed legislation to permit the designation of Enterprise Zones in selected cities across America. On July 24, I called upon the House of Representatives to bring this key measure to the floor for a vote. This proposal has the best potential to build on the progress we have made and to create jobs, independence and hope for people in inner cities and other economically distressed areas. It is time for Congress to complete action on this vital legislation.
We will not be satisfied with our economic progress until it has spread to every town and neighborhood in our Nation. For many years, the National Urban League has led the way in directing the Nation's attention to the still unresolved problems of our inner cities. I congratulate you on your many decades of distinguished service to America, and I stand ready to work closely with you on ways we can achieve further progress.
Please accept my best wishes for a most successful conference.
Ronald Reagan
Link
Yes he's truly the Grand Dragon of the KKK.
Nor will the fact that he spoke to the Urban League in New York the next day. Where he said: ''For too many people, conservative has come to mean antipoor, antiblack, and antidisadvantaged. Perhaps some of you question whether a conservative really feels sympathy and compassion for the victims of social and economic misfortune and of racial discrimination.... If you think of me as the caricatured conservative, then I ask you to listen carefully and maybe you'll be surprised by our broad areas of agreement.''
And his message to the Urban League in 1984:
Message to the Annual Conference of the National Urban League in Cleveland, Ohio
July 30, 1984
It is a great pleasure for me to send greetings to all the members of the National Urban League as you gather for your annual conference.
The prospect for urban America is bright today because of the strength of the ongoing economic expansion. The rapid decline in unemployment, coupled with a very low level of inflation, has brought a renewal of prosperity and economic opportunity throughout most parts of our Nation. But there are still some areas and groups which have not fully shared in the general recovery. These areas and groups need an extra boost to join the rest of the Nation, and that is why I have proposed legislation to permit the designation of Enterprise Zones in selected cities across America. On July 24, I called upon the House of Representatives to bring this key measure to the floor for a vote. This proposal has the best potential to build on the progress we have made and to create jobs, independence and hope for people in inner cities and other economically distressed areas. It is time for Congress to complete action on this vital legislation.
We will not be satisfied with our economic progress until it has spread to every town and neighborhood in our Nation. For many years, the National Urban League has led the way in directing the Nation's attention to the still unresolved problems of our inner cities. I congratulate you on your many decades of distinguished service to America, and I stand ready to work closely with you on ways we can achieve further progress.
Please accept my best wishes for a most successful conference.
Ronald Reagan
Link
Yes he's truly the Grand Dragon of the KKK.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jun 17 2004, 09:48 AM)
I'm glad you brought up the Neshoba County Fair. Not that it will matter to many.
It doesn't change my views on this. 6 miles is not another world, it is right down the street. States Rights was a rallying cry of those against the Civil Rights movement, it was the inspiration to run rebel flags up on statehouses in the 1950s, and Reagan launched his campaign against a backdrop of one of the worst episodes of the Civil Rights era, in a state littered with horrible anti-Civil Rights violence in the 1950s and 1960s.
(Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, James Meredith)
History of the fair
PS - Georgian-born Jimmy Carter walloped Ford there in '76, but since Reagan appeared at that fair, no democrat presidential candidate has won Mississippi.
QUOTE
Southern Fried Politics at Its Fairest
By Charlie Cook
© National Journal
August 9, 2003
Philadelphia, Miss. -- Any list of truly unique American political events would have to include Mississippi's Neshoba County Fair. Since its start in 1889, the Neshoba fair has come to play an important role in Southern politics.
Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 general election presidential campaign here. And, despite the Republicans' strength in this part of east-central Mississippi, Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, stopped here during his 1984 presidential campaign, as did Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Dukakis appearance is best remembered in these parts for a sign that one wag waved, ostensibly representing the "Neshoba County Chapter of the ACLU," welcoming Dukakis to the fair.
...
This year, prime attractions were appearances by Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and the candidate who won the GOP's August 5 gubernatorial primary, former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.
By Charlie Cook
© National Journal
August 9, 2003
Philadelphia, Miss. -- Any list of truly unique American political events would have to include Mississippi's Neshoba County Fair. Since its start in 1889, the Neshoba fair has come to play an important role in Southern politics.
Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 general election presidential campaign here. And, despite the Republicans' strength in this part of east-central Mississippi, Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, stopped here during his 1984 presidential campaign, as did Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Dukakis appearance is best remembered in these parts for a sign that one wag waved, ostensibly representing the "Neshoba County Chapter of the ACLU," welcoming Dukakis to the fair.
...
This year, prime attractions were appearances by Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and the candidate who won the GOP's August 5 gubernatorial primary, former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.
PS - Georgian-born Jimmy Carter walloped Ford there in '76, but since Reagan appeared at that fair, no democrat presidential candidate has won Mississippi.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 17 2004, 10:20 AM)
It is easy to say that the Reagan years were bad for blacks, or for women. It is harder to back it up with facts.
QUOTE
Facts are stupid things. --- Ronald Reagan
I don't think there's much point to this because there's not a statistic in the world that's going to convince me Reagan was good for black folks or disabuse white folks of the romantic fantasy that he was, but I'll take a stab at it.
Understanding states' rights helps to explain why Reagan launched his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He was invited to do so by then-US Representative (later Senator and majority leader) Trent Lott. In Philadelphia Reagan endorsed states' rights and in turn was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, which was present on that occasion. In 1964 Philadelphia was the site where civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney were murdered in the name of states' rights as they attempted to register blacks to vote in Mississippi. In 1980 Reagan was sending a states' rights signal to all conservatives, South and North, that their states would be given freedom even if it was at the expense of justice.
Reagan, the states' rights conservative, was allegedly "sensitive" and "didn't have a racially discriminatory bone in his body"--the parallel to Bush's compassionate conservatism. But he ignored AIDS for most of his time in office; supported the apartheid regime in South Africa (Congress overrode his veto of economic sanctions against the regime), seeing Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress as communists; defunded enforcement of civil rights and tried to weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act; opposed the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday (though he finally caved in and signed it); fought against affirmative action; demonized a fictitious pink-Cadillac-driving "welfare queen"; cut Medicaid, Medicare, school breakfast and lunch programs while declaring ketchup a vegetable; tried to undermine Social Security; wanted to deny women choice; tolerated an illegal Iran/contra effort in Nicaragua; diverted attention from the 241 servicemen killed in Lebanon by invading tiny Grenada under the guise that it posed a communist threat to the United States; in the name of anti-communism supported and funded right-wing murder squads in Guatemala and El Salvador; and branded the Soviet Union an "evil empire" (while ignoring the evils of racism, poverty, homelessness and illiteracy at home).
Those living in the valleys, on the fringes and in the trailer parks of America--not in the "shining city on the hill"--caught hell under Reagan
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=jackson
Oh, and before you take a shot at the author of this piece, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., I consider an elected Congressman just as reputable a source as Joseph Phillips, the well-respected young conservative and former The Cosby Show actor.
After Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=editors
He tried to gut the Civil Rights Commission, and his Administration waged a relentless series of attacks on affirmative action while trying to grant tax-exempt status to private schools that engaged in racial discrimination...
The Reagan administration launched an attack on school desegregation. They invited school districts to reverse existing desegregation orders and intervened in court cases even where school boards had not requested it. They asked the Supreme Court to authorize tax exemptions for private segregated schools. They settled cases with remedies that had failed elsewhere. They eliminated the major desegregation aid program. What distinguished the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush was their attacks on virtually all components affecting segregation and discrimination in American education.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_broke...se_of_brown.php
Reagan was AWOL on one of the important battles for freedom and democracy in the 1980s: South Africa. He defended the racist apartheid government there and claimed—as wrongly as could be—that South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country." And when Republicans and Democrats joined together in Congress to impose economic sanctions on the government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. In response to that veto, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, said, "Apartheid will be dismantled, and its victims will remember those who helped to destroy this evil system. And President Reagan will be judged harshly by history."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
The Reagan presidency was a flimsy construction of myths: A president can cut taxes while increasing spending, with no adverse economic consequences; there is no racism in America; a rising tide lifts all boats.
Like so many staunch Goldwater Republicans, Reagan despised the nation's social safety net. But he was unable to dismantle it. So he attacked it indirectly, initiating tax cuts so sweeping that they would have eventually bankrupted the treasury and forced the government to turn its back on the New Deal. That is the heart and soul of Reaganomics.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17111
Former South African President Nelson Mandela recently announced that he was retiring from public life. And Mandela will not be among the foreign dignitaries attending services for Ronald Reagan. After all, Mandela was languishing in a South African prison throughout the duration of Reagan's presidency. But this history has been effectively re-written in the US. The dominant view is that the US was on the right side in South Africa, that it opposed apartheid. But nothing could be further from the truth, particularly when Reagan was president. Reagan labeled Mandela's African National Congress a notorious terrorist organization, while continuing Washington's support for the apartheid regime. In 1981, Reagan explained to CBS that he was loyal to the South African regime because it was "a country that has stood by us in every war we've ever fought, a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world in its production of minerals."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17111
"In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian . . . You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favour of evil or you are in favour of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral." (Bishop Desmond Tutu in a 1984 speech)
In 1987, Reagan published a report that said additional sanctions "would not be helpful". The gleeful South African foreign minister, Roelof Botha, said Reagan "and his administration have an understanding of the reality of South Africa".
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1...l?oneclick=true
Two audio files featuring commentaries from Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West about Reagan's passage and the pernicious legacy of Reaganomics:
NPR's Tavis Smiley talks to commentator Michael Eric Dyson about the legacy of former President Ronald Reagan and his impact on America's minorities.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1952635
Commentator Cornel West says former President Ronald Reagan was a charismatic human being with a smile that concealed vicious foreign and domestic policies.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1950787
Additional links:
“It’s not really mourning. We recognize him as the 40th president of the United States,” said Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), adding, “In terms of being a president for African-Americans, he was not.”
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement, said, “We all grieve for his family, but at the same time we can’t escape the fact that Ronald Reagan was not a friend of civil rights.”
“It’s rather unkind not to mourn the president, but he didn’t have a strong record on African-American issues,” said Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).
Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.), a former student of Walters’s at Howard University, also
offered a measured assessment.
“His passage is being viewed with appropriate respect as a former president; however, many in the African-American community strongly disagreed with his domestic policy,” Wynn said.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/061004/blacks.aspx
When AIDS struck inner cities, Reaganomics was just getting into full swing, the welfare mother was being held up as a symbol of ridicule, and there was a growing movement afoot to cut "wasteful" federal social programs. African American communities, often fragmented and poor, were already overwhelmed by other crises. They simply did not have the resources, the information, or the political will to mobilize against the slowly unfolding epidemic.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/07/aids.html
By 1991, the Reagan administration was being blamed for the high unemployment rates. In fact, compared to white Americans, African Americans had higher unemployment rates, less access to the top jobs in the workplace and lower wages, according to a National Urban League report released that year.
What was given in the '60s and '70s was taken away under President Reagan's administration of the '80s, said Thomas D. Boston, an economist who wrote a book critical of Reagan titled Race, Class and the Reagan Administration.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mitchell/cst-nws-mitch08.html
Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the "Chicago welfare queen" who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for "four nonexisting deceased husbands," bilking the government out of "over $150,000." The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use his version of the story even after the press pointed out the actual facts of the case to him.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...city-index.html
An online poll on Black Enterprise.com asks the following question:
President Ronald Reagan is being widely celebrated as one of our nation's greatest leaders. What do you think about the legacy of our 40th president? [900 votes total]
He was one of our greatest president's (108) 12%
He didn't do much for minorities (695) 77%
Undecided (97) 11%
http://vote.sparklit.com/poll.spark?pollID=841385
[I]Having experienced major declines in federal funding during the conservative Reagan Administration, the National Urban League established the voter education drive in the attempts to have minorities register and vote in the 1984 presidential election. As part of the voter education drive, the National Urban League issued reports on the Reagan administration regarding setbacks in civil rights legislation, the disproportionate spending allowances between social services and military spending, and the nomination of Robert Bork for Supreme Court justice.
http://library.albany.edu/speccoll/findaids/apap008.htm
I don't accuse Reagan of racism, though while he served, I did note what seemed to be his indifference to the concerns of black Americans -- issues ranging from civil rights enforcement and attacks on "welfare queens" to his refusal to act seriously against the apartheid regime in South Africa. He gets full credit from me for the good things he did -- including presiding over the end of international communism. But he also legitimized, by his broad wink at it, racial indifference -- and worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun13.html
Look, you can talk stats, the reality is, you had to have lived it.
I was 18 at the outset and there were so few jobs. If you were white and already rich, your life was great, super tax cuts, but we had to pay higher tuition costs because Reagans onslaught was on everyone but the super rich. Tax cuts were enormous and defense spending as well, but social , housing programs , even work programs initiated under Carter were cut to nothing. ( I would like to say here that I have never taken a dime from the government , neither in unemployment or welfare)
If you were a blue collar worker or a single woman maybe with children or poor, you lived in policy HEll under Reagan.
It has already been said that he demonized single mothers as 'welfare queens', but as well held a strong anti-abortion policy. I often wonder how you can do both , leaving women with no recourse, a remind that birth control was not covered under health insurance, and until Clinton only the most well of even had health insurance. Often today it still is not, nor made convenient or cheap nor easily accessible because Planned Parenthood funds were cut. (AS well under Bush Jr) All falls on female responsibility, yet, if for example, as Reagan ( and Bush Jr.) touted that 'women' should abstain from sex before marriage, Id surely like to see what would happen--- if women began to withhold sex before marriage all across america.. just watch violent sex crimes and domestic abuse go through the roof. Its just a stupified and ridiculous male short sighted utopia they certainely did/do not want, a control issue of ridiculous porportions, backing women into an impossible corner. Reagan wanted no birth control, no abortion, no sex education. Now , as men, you tell me what you really think of that program and if it can work? Isnt it so greatly known that the male sex drive needs constant attention? Yet the cuts all went against single mothers who were the responsible
wBitches, on welfare, bleeding the country dry.
Rant it is, but heres the facts--- a woman has to have at least ONE recourse. You have to have available inexpensive birth control and sex education or family planning help-- or abortion, or society has to pay for the babies, you cannot say NO to all three, which is what Reagan did and what conservatives still do to this day. To coin the term, "Somethings gotta give". While many people were hoping supply side economics would work, others were realizing the huge detriment to society that Reagans lack of understanding was causing to Americans in everyday life. For some its all about finances, for others its about living life, and when you have someone controlling not just your uterus but possiby 18 or more years in the future its a bit more grave and worthy of all your attention.
There was a big blue collar work force at that time. Factories were closing en masse. Noone knew when their job was going to just end. Entire towns were decimated, they sold their homes for pennies on the dollar. There was massive emigration inside the US from north to south, and the southerners didnt want this. I kid you not, it was internal economic devastation. Reagan was spending disporpotionately on defense and claiming that we needed to give big business every break. There is a reason it is said that the Reagan Era was the worst since the Great Depression.
"Homeless" was what Reagan brought to the US. Before Reagan 'homelessness' was not a term. Before there were bums and tramps a few as in all history, then suddenly there were droves of homeless, driven out by Reagan cuts and lack of safety net. For the young out there who didnt live it, Id like to make a note here that the word 'Homeless' and the expanse of it was unknown in the US before Reagan. That is certainly a Reagan legacy. We did not have this beforehand. What you see as a 'homeless' problem is only since Reagan.
Prisons and zero tolerance.
The War on Drugs filled our prisons with low level marijuana dealers, while cocaine and heroine bled through the borders unchecked. This was the most corrupt 'wag the dog' policy of the Reagan administration. As of the year 2000---2 million people have been incarcerated for drug charges.
" Zero tolerance was a shameful fraud from its inception, in the drug war, where it was concocted by the Reagan administration to show the world that, when it came to drugs, the United States was really, really, really serious. Combined with an equally ignorant "asset forfeiture" policy, zero tolerance essentially meant that objects -- cars, houses, boats -- could be guilty of crimes. A cop finds pot in your car, you lose your car. Doesn't matter how it got there, this is zero tolerance."
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/balko/100500.htm
The fact is we now have illegal search and seizure, illegal by Amendmennt IV was also a Reagan legacy in 'zero tolerance' and if you lend your car, boat, or house to anyone who makes the grave error of smoking a joint in it, you lose it, if caught.
Amendment IV:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. '
So much for "free' America. This is a phallacy (sic on purpose) taught to Americans who do not travel enough and dont realize what freedom truly is but swallow government rhetoric as they steal from you everything you ever believed in year after year.
To answer the question for debate again, Reagan was a man for the rich by the rich. He sent the nations debt skyrocketing, spent 3 trillion dollars on nothing but personal fantasies of supremacy over the Soviet Union, when confronted with government corruption in Iran/Contra came back with the supremely intelligent answer of " I dont recall' to over 100 questions. No kidding, thats America's hero, no suprise there, since Americas hero seems to be personified in Homer Simpsons ,
"Doh".
I was 18 at the outset and there were so few jobs. If you were white and already rich, your life was great, super tax cuts, but we had to pay higher tuition costs because Reagans onslaught was on everyone but the super rich. Tax cuts were enormous and defense spending as well, but social , housing programs , even work programs initiated under Carter were cut to nothing. ( I would like to say here that I have never taken a dime from the government , neither in unemployment or welfare)
If you were a blue collar worker or a single woman maybe with children or poor, you lived in policy HEll under Reagan.
It has already been said that he demonized single mothers as 'welfare queens', but as well held a strong anti-abortion policy. I often wonder how you can do both , leaving women with no recourse, a remind that birth control was not covered under health insurance, and until Clinton only the most well of even had health insurance. Often today it still is not, nor made convenient or cheap nor easily accessible because Planned Parenthood funds were cut. (AS well under Bush Jr) All falls on female responsibility, yet, if for example, as Reagan ( and Bush Jr.) touted that 'women' should abstain from sex before marriage, Id surely like to see what would happen--- if women began to withhold sex before marriage all across america.. just watch violent sex crimes and domestic abuse go through the roof. Its just a stupified and ridiculous male short sighted utopia they certainely did/do not want, a control issue of ridiculous porportions, backing women into an impossible corner. Reagan wanted no birth control, no abortion, no sex education. Now , as men, you tell me what you really think of that program and if it can work? Isnt it so greatly known that the male sex drive needs constant attention? Yet the cuts all went against single mothers who were the responsible
wBitches, on welfare, bleeding the country dry.
Rant it is, but heres the facts--- a woman has to have at least ONE recourse. You have to have available inexpensive birth control and sex education or family planning help-- or abortion, or society has to pay for the babies, you cannot say NO to all three, which is what Reagan did and what conservatives still do to this day. To coin the term, "Somethings gotta give". While many people were hoping supply side economics would work, others were realizing the huge detriment to society that Reagans lack of understanding was causing to Americans in everyday life. For some its all about finances, for others its about living life, and when you have someone controlling not just your uterus but possiby 18 or more years in the future its a bit more grave and worthy of all your attention.
There was a big blue collar work force at that time. Factories were closing en masse. Noone knew when their job was going to just end. Entire towns were decimated, they sold their homes for pennies on the dollar. There was massive emigration inside the US from north to south, and the southerners didnt want this. I kid you not, it was internal economic devastation. Reagan was spending disporpotionately on defense and claiming that we needed to give big business every break. There is a reason it is said that the Reagan Era was the worst since the Great Depression.
"Homeless" was what Reagan brought to the US. Before Reagan 'homelessness' was not a term. Before there were bums and tramps a few as in all history, then suddenly there were droves of homeless, driven out by Reagan cuts and lack of safety net. For the young out there who didnt live it, Id like to make a note here that the word 'Homeless' and the expanse of it was unknown in the US before Reagan. That is certainly a Reagan legacy. We did not have this beforehand. What you see as a 'homeless' problem is only since Reagan.
Prisons and zero tolerance.
The War on Drugs filled our prisons with low level marijuana dealers, while cocaine and heroine bled through the borders unchecked. This was the most corrupt 'wag the dog' policy of the Reagan administration. As of the year 2000---2 million people have been incarcerated for drug charges.
" Zero tolerance was a shameful fraud from its inception, in the drug war, where it was concocted by the Reagan administration to show the world that, when it came to drugs, the United States was really, really, really serious. Combined with an equally ignorant "asset forfeiture" policy, zero tolerance essentially meant that objects -- cars, houses, boats -- could be guilty of crimes. A cop finds pot in your car, you lose your car. Doesn't matter how it got there, this is zero tolerance."
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/balko/100500.htm
The fact is we now have illegal search and seizure, illegal by Amendmennt IV was also a Reagan legacy in 'zero tolerance' and if you lend your car, boat, or house to anyone who makes the grave error of smoking a joint in it, you lose it, if caught.
Amendment IV:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. '
So much for "free' America. This is a phallacy (sic on purpose) taught to Americans who do not travel enough and dont realize what freedom truly is but swallow government rhetoric as they steal from you everything you ever believed in year after year.
To answer the question for debate again, Reagan was a man for the rich by the rich. He sent the nations debt skyrocketing, spent 3 trillion dollars on nothing but personal fantasies of supremacy over the Soviet Union, when confronted with government corruption in Iran/Contra came back with the supremely intelligent answer of " I dont recall' to over 100 questions. No kidding, thats America's hero, no suprise there, since Americas hero seems to be personified in Homer Simpsons ,
"Doh".
On South Africa, do you see the irony of the exact same people (democrat congressmen in particular) who lately argue against sanctions for Cuba were arguing FOR sanctions against South Africa. As someone who is against economic sanctions in general, I'm cynical. If sanctions were a good thing to bring down the evil South African gov't that oppressed black people, why are they a bad thing to bring down evil communists in Cuba, who oppress brown people? Maybe sanctions are just a political ploy?
On AIDS in particular this is just propaganda. There are serious journalists parroting the talking point that Reagan never said AIDS until 1987. That's just silly - for one he was asked about it repeatedly in the 1984 debates, plus he had an AIDS point person in 82 or 83 who declared it her #1 poriority - I think it was Margaret Heckler but could be wrong. AIDS funding started doubling every year from 1983 onwards.
And while many here may disagree with conservatism, you can't deny that the vast majority of AIDS cases even 20 years later are still caused by bad personal choices - undprotected, mostly homosexual, sex and IV drug use. I mean seriously, there was a plague killing gay men in the early 80's. Wonder how it's spreading? I could have solved that with a lot less than $1 billion per year, but that's not a very popular viewpoint.
Much as Bush or Carter or Clinton is a president of all the people, so was Reagan. That's how it works. He was just a man after all.
On AIDS in particular this is just propaganda. There are serious journalists parroting the talking point that Reagan never said AIDS until 1987. That's just silly - for one he was asked about it repeatedly in the 1984 debates, plus he had an AIDS point person in 82 or 83 who declared it her #1 poriority - I think it was Margaret Heckler but could be wrong. AIDS funding started doubling every year from 1983 onwards.
And while many here may disagree with conservatism, you can't deny that the vast majority of AIDS cases even 20 years later are still caused by bad personal choices - undprotected, mostly homosexual, sex and IV drug use. I mean seriously, there was a plague killing gay men in the early 80's. Wonder how it's spreading? I could have solved that with a lot less than $1 billion per year, but that's not a very popular viewpoint.
Much as Bush or Carter or Clinton is a president of all the people, so was Reagan. That's how it works. He was just a man after all.
If the debate is whether or not Reagan was a liberal, I don't think I would be posting on this thread.
What it comes down to (for me, at least) is whether or not Conservative policies can really benefit women, minorities, and the poor. I would strongly argue that they can and that under Reagan, they did.
If you frame the issue to only include Affirmative Action and abortion, of course Reagan will never be viewed as helping the non-white and the non-male.
Fortunately, this debate is not about whether or not Reagan's policies are liberal.
I did live it. My parents were (and are) "the working poor" or the lower middle class, however you want to frame it. I attended the atrocious Cleveland public schools during the '80s, as did my four brothers. I was bussed 45 minutes across town in the name of "desegregation". My parents worked 4 or 5 jobs between them to maintain a household and never complained. Lifelong Democrats, they loved Reagan. They loved his optimism, they loved his strength of will.
The "fact" is that Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, who I feel is solely responsible for Roe v. Wade still being upheld. Anthony Kennedy (another Reagan appointee) also strongly favors keeping Roe v. Wade. So much for the abortion myth.
Zero tolerance for crime is bad, I guess. I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. I have known many people who have been busted for pot who have not had their personal property confiscated. Maybe it was an Alaskan phenomenon?
This one is rich. A narrow look at the first 2 years of the Reagan Presidency. A time when the effects of the Carter "malaise" had not yet worn off. 20 million jobs were created under Reagan. "Internal economic devastation"? Thank Jimmy for that. It was not the "Reagan Era" which was the worst since the Great Depression, it was the Recession on 1982 that was. By 1984, it had all turned around.
If the sum of the argument against Reagan is that he was a Conservative, then he is guilty as charged. If being a Conservative automatically means that you are anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor from some viewpoint: I am sorry but I simply cannot agree.
The approach is different, that much is true. But results are measurable. If the facts are tossed out, and emotion-laden anecdotal evidence is substituted, then of course we will never come to a consensus. The mere fact that Reagan was a conservative does not make him a man of the rich, white men of America. I refuse to accept that.
What it comes down to (for me, at least) is whether or not Conservative policies can really benefit women, minorities, and the poor. I would strongly argue that they can and that under Reagan, they did.
If you frame the issue to only include Affirmative Action and abortion, of course Reagan will never be viewed as helping the non-white and the non-male.
Fortunately, this debate is not about whether or not Reagan's policies are liberal.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Look, you can talk stats, the reality is, you had to have lived it.
I did live it. My parents were (and are) "the working poor" or the lower middle class, however you want to frame it. I attended the atrocious Cleveland public schools during the '80s, as did my four brothers. I was bussed 45 minutes across town in the name of "desegregation". My parents worked 4 or 5 jobs between them to maintain a household and never complained. Lifelong Democrats, they loved Reagan. They loved his optimism, they loved his strength of will.
The "fact" is that Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, who I feel is solely responsible for Roe v. Wade still being upheld. Anthony Kennedy (another Reagan appointee) also strongly favors keeping Roe v. Wade. So much for the abortion myth.
Zero tolerance for crime is bad, I guess. I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. I have known many people who have been busted for pot who have not had their personal property confiscated. Maybe it was an Alaskan phenomenon?
QUOTE(Artemise)
There was a big blue collar work force at that time. Factories were closing en masse. Noone knew when their job was going to just end. Entire towns were decimated, they sold their homes for pennies on the dollar. There was massive emigration inside the US from north to south, and the southerners didnt want this. I kid you not, it was internal economic devastation. Reagan was spending disporpotionately on defense and claiming that we needed to give big business every break. There is a reason it is said that the Reagan Era was the worst since the Great Depression.
This one is rich. A narrow look at the first 2 years of the Reagan Presidency. A time when the effects of the Carter "malaise" had not yet worn off. 20 million jobs were created under Reagan. "Internal economic devastation"? Thank Jimmy for that. It was not the "Reagan Era" which was the worst since the Great Depression, it was the Recession on 1982 that was. By 1984, it had all turned around.
If the sum of the argument against Reagan is that he was a Conservative, then he is guilty as charged. If being a Conservative automatically means that you are anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor from some viewpoint: I am sorry but I simply cannot agree.
The approach is different, that much is true. But results are measurable. If the facts are tossed out, and emotion-laden anecdotal evidence is substituted, then of course we will never come to a consensus. The mere fact that Reagan was a conservative does not make him a man of the rich, white men of America. I refuse to accept that.
QUOTE
"Homeless" was what Reagan brought to the US. Before Reagan 'homelessness' was not a term.
Your second sentence is absolutely correct. This term was pushed by Mitch Snyder of the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV), who claimed that 1 per cent, or some 2.2 million, of all Americans lacked shelter. And this was of course, jumped on by Democratic opponents to Reagan. And why not? Sure made for good sound bites on network TV.
However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, conducted a study of its own. A Report to the Secretary on the Homeless and Emergency Shelters (1984) concluded that the number of homeless probably ranged from 250,000 to 350,000, and that emergency shelters, far from bursting at the seams, were only about two-thirds full.
House Joint Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D-Tx) was moved to compare HUD's estimate with denials of the Nazi Holocaust. Gee, that seems to be a common and reoccurring theme among liberals. Time for some new material guys.
For me, having lived and worked during the Reagan years, the 80's were a time of financial independence. My blue collar, single mother bought the family's first home in 1981 thanks to the lowering of interest rates. We worked hard and had a great sense of optimism about the future. Reagan's stance against communism was one the the 2-3 factors in why I joined the Army. A decision that has taken me beyond my wildest aspirations as a kid.
But this is all probably just more revisionist history.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 18 2004, 09:20 AM)
If the facts are tossed out, and emotion-laden anecdotal evidence is substituted, then of course we will never come to a consensus. The mere fact that Reagan was a conservative does not make him a man of the rich, white men of America. I refuse to accept that.
QUOTE
You just don't get it, do you Amlord?
Who says consensus is always a good thing? It's not. Not in this case. For you Reagan was a hero. For me Reagan was a villian. You can't make your heroes mine and I wouldn't attempt to make mine yours.
I don't care how many pictures of a smiling Reagan shaking hands with Michael Jackson, Ray Charles, J.C. Watts or any other black person brought in for a photo-op are published. The truth is a subjective thing and can be accepted and rejected as it conforms or distorts one's personal reality. I reject the "truth" that Reagan was kindly and benovolent to black people. I don't believe he was and I saw little evidence from the eight years of the Reagan Administration to convince me otherwise.
I don't dislike Reagan for being a conservative. Bob Dole, Elizabeth Dole, Jack Kemp, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Karl Malone, Joseph Phillips are just a few of the conservatives I respect, if not necessarily agree with.
However, I do believe it was "the rich, white men of America" who were the prime beneficiaries of Reaganomics. That is my truth and while I won't force anyone else to accept it, neither will I allow others to challenge it without confrontation.
That is why Amlord, I disagree that it is important that we reach a consensus on the enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan. The conversation is more vital than the consensus.
What I am starting to notice about these threads about Reagan is the left wants to blame everything that went wrong for the world or the U.S. on Reagan. And at the same time anything that was positive for the world or the U.S., Reagan just happened to be the president at the time. Right 
Nighttimer said:
I assume you mean the top 1% rich right? How many states did Reagan win in 1984 again? Oh it was 49 you say? So I guess a few more people benefited from Reagan's policies, otherwise it would have not been a landslide.
Nighttimer said:
QUOTE
However, I do believe it was "the rich, white men of America" who were the prime beneficiaries of Reaganomics
I assume you mean the top 1% rich right? How many states did Reagan win in 1984 again? Oh it was 49 you say? So I guess a few more people benefited from Reagan's policies, otherwise it would have not been a landslide.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jun 18 2004, 01:35 PM)
What I am starting to notice about these threads about Reagan is the left wants to blame everything that went wrong for the world or the U.S. on Reagan. And at the same time anything that was positive for the world or the U.S., Reagan just happened to be the president at the time. Right
QUOTE
If that's what you're noticing Sleeper I can only assume you haven't read my posts or entirely understood them. I give Reagan credit for being the Supreme Salesman and what he was selling was plenty of "can-do" and "We're Number 1."
I'm not faulting anyone for buying in. Just don't be upset that some of us weren't buying what he was selling.
If Reagan was just a conservative doing what conservatives do it came at a very bad time to do it in a very bad recession. As people were already suffering great economic problems, the closing of factories, farms and cutting internal budgets and programs caused a huge divide between the haves and have-nots and caused major emmigrations, loss of homes and a huge escalation of homelessness, it wasnt just sound bytes, it was reality. I give you "Comic Relief" and " Farm Aid", when people realized all kinds of Aid relief concerts and programs because life as we knew it in America was dying to pro-corporate policy that was killing the average citizen on many leve