It is now conventional wisdom among Democrats that anyone who opposes racial preferences is a racist. (See the several posts below on recent developments in Michigan.) And speaking of conventional liberal wisdom, there is no better place to look (or rather, listen) than National Public Radio, where the following just appeared in a column by Juan Williams on “Reagan, the South, and Civil Rights“:
After he defeated President Carter, a native Southerner, Reagan led an administration that seemed to cater to Southerners still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years. The Reagan team condemned busing for school integration, opposed affirmative action and even threatened to veto a proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation). President Reagan also tried to allow Bob Jones University, a segregated Southern school, to reclaim federal tax credits that had long been denied to racially discriminatory institutions.
Taking these charges in order, it was not only the “Reagan team”:
● that condemned “busing for school integration,” but all those who believed racial classification and racial assignment of students was wrong;
● that opposed “affirmative action” once it came to mean racial preference;
● that opposed the radical transformation of voting discrimination law from a shield against racial discrimination to an effort to guarantee the success of a certain proportion of minority candidates;
● that was troubled by the arguments used to take away the tax exemption from Bob Jones University (see my discussion of Bob Jones here).
Nor is it accurate to characterize all or any of these positions as an attempt to “to cater to Southerners [or anyone else] still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years.” On the contrary, each one of these positions can be defended as closer in both spirit and letter to the Civil Rights Act than the contrary views held by the conventionally wise.
Juan Williams is not noted for his objectivity nor intelligence but rather as being a shill for the racial spoils system that this nation has embraced. It would be interesting to see what would happen if any of these measures were put up for a popular vote to see how the American people support them.
Yeah, but then these chatterers would take it to show that Americans as a whole are racists, and isn’t it good that people who know what’s best are making the rules…
REAGAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
John Rosenberg takes apart Juan Williams’ article about Ronald Reagan’s legacy on civil rights. For example, Williams states The Reagan team condemned busing for school integration, opposed affirmative action and even threatened to veto a proposed exte…
I am looking forward to the 40th anniv. “celebrations” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I guess celebration will need to be defined less as a festive occasion than as handwringing and bewailing “how much further we as a country need to go to address…” Of course, the actual meaning of the act will likely be obscured to the extent necessary to argue for continuing AA.
So Reagan and his team opposed affirmative action? Since federal affirmative action was begun by and is governed by a presidential executive order, that means he must have put out his own executive order and ended it.
But he didn’t. Neither did either of the Bushes. The fact is that just about no respectable politician opposes affirmative action. Many say general things against it but don’t take the actions they could to end it.
They realize that if they did, they would be engulfed by–and here the cliche is accurate–a firestorm of criticism. And insult. Racist. Uncaring. Etc.
The politician who truly wanted to end affirmative action would have to make the case beforehand that ending it would actually be less racist, more caring, etc. No major politician has tried to do that. It just seems too dangerous.
There are a number of politicians–mostly Republicans–who oppose racial preference “in principle.” But they were unwilling to do much “in practise.” I suppose they hoped the Supreme Court, in Grutter and Gratz, would declare racial preference unconstitutional and spare them the trouble.
But it didn’t. Perhaps if they had had a “color blind” “litmus test” for judges like the Democrats have a “pro-choice” one. But that would have required that they care as much as Democrats do.
Does anyone find it ironic that Juan Williams was the reporter for the Washington Post that reported that Jesse Jackson referred to NY City as Hymietown?
I’ve read all the comments,that are posted about president reagan i was a young child during his presidency. I find it striking that no blacks mourned his death being an black women that says a mouth full about reagan and his relationship with black america maybe not as a president but at least with our community its not about hand outs its about reconition of our community not just for blacks but minorities as a whole. President clinton was and is loved by all his life has impacted all color barriers.