Philadelphia Revisited

by matttbastard

Judging by how eagerly he fellates the immaculately corrupted corpse of Saint Ronnie the Racist, amateur revisionist historian Bobo Brooks must harbour repressed necrophiliac tendencies. As Bob Herbert puts it, “Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.”

Republican racism, rhetorical cadaver-fucking and a possible fisting metaphor; yeah, it’s gonna be real fun observing the Google search terms that hit this post.

RelatedJoseph Crespino:

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. John Bell Williams, an arch-segregationist former governor who had crossed party lines in 1964 to endorse Barry Goldwater, joined Reagan on stage at another campaign stop in Mississippi. Reagan’s campaign chair in the state, Trent Lott, praised Strom Thurmond, the former segregationist Dixiecrat candidate in 1948, at a Reagan rally, saying that if Thurmond had been elected president “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.”

[…]

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

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Advertisements

One Inconvenient Truth About Michael Medved: He’s An Imbecile

by matttbastard

x-posted @ Comments From Left Field

The title says it all: “Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery“. Yes, it’s exactly what you think it is, a revisionist ‘essay’ on slavery – and yes, it’s as bad as (if not worse than) you’d expect, considering the source. Apparently erstwhile movie critic and conservative pundit Michael Medved is living on some cozy, antebellum plantation far, far away from what the rest of us commonly refer to as ‘reality’.

Maha pointedly asks “What the hell was eating at Medved’s reptilian brain that inspired him to write this? Has criticism of American slavery been in the news lately?” Man, I gave up trying to understand Medved back when he was on Sneak Previews, railing against Hollywood’s secular humanist jihad against organized religion and good taste while poor Jeffrey Lyons struggled to keep a straight face (Medved on Pulp Fiction: “I hated it! I hated every frame of it! Well, I won’t say that I hated every frame of it. I mean, Bruce Willis and John Travolta have never been so mediocre, but I found it just rampagingly mediocre. But that’s enough about Pulp Fiction, let’s get to one of the films on my ten best list The Swan Princess. “)

Maybe CNN will give Medved a prime-time segment to defend his 6-point thesis (especially #3: THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT), much like they did back when he was offering notorious Hollywood anti-Semite alcoholic Mel Gibson some Judaic apologia.

Related: Ed Morrissey provides a sensibly conservative response to Medved’s sub-literate shit-stirring (as only a sensible conservative like Ed can):

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether we think that slavery was more brutal than it was, or whether it had some minutely positive affect on the arc of the lives of its descendants. Its long existence in the history of humanity should also count for little. After all, the entire American experiment exists as a means to keep a free citizenry from becoming the chattel of an aristocracy or monarchy and able to govern itself freely. At its heart, slavery denied every American ideal, and the Jim Crow regime that followed betrayed our political values. Those insults deserve no mitigation, only contempt and fierce condemnation.

Won’t bother linking to the reliably frothy Dan Riehl’s not-so-sensible response (“[g]et over it, already”), since, well, I refuse to give Dan Riehl a link – ever. Suffice to say, he’s clapping for Medved like a slack-jawed circus seal (arf arf). Incidentally, CNN also considers Riehl to be a mainstream representative of the Right.

“Liberal bias” my ass.

More from: Michael van der Galiën, Sadly, No!, Lean Left and Crooked Timber

Via Memeorandum.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers