Who would have guessed that 27 years after the fact, Ronald Reagan’s “states’ rights” speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, would be the subject of such intense debate? Particularly among op-ed columnists at the paper of record?
If you’re just joining us, the Great Krugman-Brooks Feud of 2007 has been ongoing. Paul Krugman, in a recent column and in his great new book, noted that Reagan employed a divisive Southern strategy in 1980, starting his campaign with a speech supporting states’ rights in the same Mississippi town where three civil rights workers were murdered. David Brooks responded, accusing Krugman (without mentioning his name) of being a “partisan” who is “distorting” historical events. Krugman responded to Brooks (without mention his name, either) in a blog post, highlighting for context Reagan’s history of racial problems.
Brendan Nyhan suggested both sides are right. Reagan did exploit racial divisions and his 1980 speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, has been misconstrued.
But we’re not done quite yet. Today, the NYT’s Bob Herbert tries to set the record straight and comes down decisively in Krugman’s corner. Herbert noted the vicious murders of civil-rights advocates committed by white supremacists in the area, which was the community’s claim to fame when Reagan stopped by.
The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day…. Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. […]
Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.
He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you. And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered.
It gets worse.
If you’re not convinced by Herbert and Krugman, consider this take from Emory University history professor Joseph Crespino:
A full account of the incident has to consider how the national GOP was trying to strengthen its southern state parties and win support from southern white Democrats. Consider a letter that Michael Retzer, the Mississippi national committeeman, wrote in December 1979 to the Republican national committee. Well before the Republicans had nominated Reagan, the national committee was polling state leaders to line up venues where the Republican nominee might speak. Retzer pointed to the Neshoba County Fair as ideal for winning what he called the “George Wallace inclined voters.”
This Republican leader knew that the segregationist Alabama governor was the symbol of southern white resentment against the civil rights struggle. Richard Nixon had angled to win these voters in 1968 and 1972. Mississippi Republicans knew that a successful Republican candidate in 1980 would have to continue the effort.
On July 31st, just days before Reagan went to Neshoba County, the New York Times reported that the Ku Klux Klan had endorsed Reagan. In its newspaper, the Klan said that the Republican platform “reads as if it were written by a Klansman.” Reagan rejected the endorsement, but only after a Carter cabinet official brought it up in a campaign speech. The dubious connection did not stop Reagan from using segregationist language in Neshoba County.
It was clear from other episodes in that campaign that Reagan was content to let southern Republicans link him to segregationist politics in the South’s recent past. Reagan’s states rights line was prepared beforehand and reporters covering the event could not recall him using the term before the Neshoba County appearance.
Point, set, match.
I understand the right’s consternation here. Ronald Reagan is the only modern president conservatives are proud of, and it’s no doubt painful to think that their hero intentionally appealed to white supremacists with racially-divisive campaign tactics. Republicans no doubt prefer to think of their idol as a man of stronger character and virtue.
But that doesn’t mean they can re-write history. Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act and tried to weaken it as president. He opposed a holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The weakened the Civil Rights Commission. He opposed expanding federal civil rights laws. He sought to protect tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. He rejected sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa.
And Reagan used racially-charged language intended to divide and offend. Conservatives may not like it, but facts are stubborn things.