Steven F. Hayward, Paul Kengor, Craig Shirley and Kiron K. Skinner wrote a strange Washington Post op-ed yesterday decrying the inspiro-pic â€œThe Butler,â€ for its allegedly unkind portrayal of Ronald Reaganâ€™s racial views. I was a little surprised by their complaints, since the Butler is quite kind to Reagan on a personal level.
These authors believe that the film â€œperpetuates an ahistorical caricature of Reagan as racially insensitive,â€ largely due his policy of constructive engagement regarding South Africa.Â Unfortunately, the historical record indicates that Reagan wasâ€¦.really, really racially insensitive. He received fourteen percent of the African-American vote in 1980. Itâ€™s rather surprisingly that he received even that.
Hayward and colleagues note preemptively one episode themselves:
For decades, Reaganâ€™s legacy has been unfairly dogged by claims that his 1980 presidential campaign was marked by the use of code words and symbols that accommodated white racists. Critics point, for instance, to his post-convention appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi. Civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner had been killed in nearby Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964, and some commentators say Reagan was insensitive to this tragedy when he said, â€œI believe in statesâ€™ rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can .â€‰.â€‰. at the private level.â€ But the former California governor, a strong believer in federalism, had been talking about statesâ€™ rights since the early days of his political career.
Hayward and company donâ€™t explain whatâ€™s unfair in the criticsâ€™ charges. Reaganâ€™s comments certainly were insensitive, but that hardly covers things. A subtle politician attuned to the symbolic meaning of his statements and actions, Reagan could hardly have missed the general implications of his comments. On theÂ substance, Reagan was standing on one of best spots, within one of the best states, to exemplify why his career-long support for â€œstatesâ€™ rightsâ€ was always profoundly inadequate.
Yesterday’s op-ed somehow failed to mention that Reagan had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Campaigning in Georgia, Reagan stated that Jefferson Davis was “a hero of mine.” This op-ed also omitted specific mention to his many coded references to race, such as his 1976 references to a â€œstrapping young buckâ€ buying T-bone steaks with food stamps.
I wouldnâ€™t deny or disparage Reaganâ€™s personal kindnesses to individual African-Americans. He was a decent person to those he knewâ€”something â€œThe Butlerâ€ depicted well. This doesnâ€™t change the much more important fact that his public record on race was abysmal.
Reaganâ€™s difficulties go beyond various mis-statements, disagreements with civil rights leaders, or policy differences about incremental reforms in South Africa. His basic political strategy was to position himself as Barry Goldwaterâ€™s rightful heir in the GOP. Much of Reaganâ€™s real base was among conservative Republicans in the post-1964 southern Republican Party.
I know of no evidence that Reagan himself held invidious racial views, but his limited-government views (like Barry Goldwater’s) were obviously congenial to those who did hold such views. In 1966, Reagan stated: “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.” Such views carried over into his presidency, for example in his support for segregationist Bob Jones Universityâ€™s unsuccessful effort to maintain its tax exemption.
Whatever Reaganâ€™s inner racial views or his private behavior towards individual African-Americans, he chose to court what might politely be called race-conservative segments of the American electorate. He and his party prospered politically by making that choice.
Historians and biographers, of all people, should realize that todayâ€™s Republican Party can’t diminish or run away from that legacy. It needs to create something more inclusive and better than the party Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan built.