Bad News, Everyone

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,119
433
88
Country
USA
evilthecat said:
It is not a coincidence that people in the south suddenly become very interested in "states rights" and "new federalism" at the exact time when civil rights or desegregation became an issue.
That doesn't make federalism wrong. If a white supremacist drinks milk, that doesn't mean you're a white supremacist for drinking milk. Something being good for racists doesn't make it a bad thing. Freedom of speech is beloved by racists, but it's also very very good for everyone else too.

If the opposite had happened, if the Republican Party had suddenly become interested in federalism and small government just in time to win over racists in the 60s, you'd have reason to be suspicious. But Republicans were the conservative party far, far longer than that, and the party that was moving rapidly was the Democratic Party.

Also, I don't know where you're getting this idea that Atwater thinks Goldwater was a racist or stokes racial politics. He's used as an example of a historical Republican running on a platform similar to Atwater's perception of Reagan's platform. Atwater's point is that Goldwater found success in the south despite not bringing racial issues into his campaign. His argument is that the south has been stereotyped as this weird, reactionary place, but now with Reagan as president Goldwater's views on economy and security are considered mainstream.
"Now that's interesting in that those are the issues basically that Goldwater, in other words the South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth, because we weren't mainstream on not only on the race thing but on the economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered ultra-conservative and everything.

What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act, TBA, and all that bullshit."

Goldwater is described here as Neanderthalic on race, campaigning on the voting rights act and all that BS.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,953
436
88
Country
United Kingdom
tstorm823 said:
That doesn't make federalism wrong.
True, but it does make the kind of "federalism" where state governments are allowed to decide who is and isn't entitled to the rights and protections of US citizenship wrong, because historically whenever state governments have been given that power, they have abused it. That is what "states rights" means, it means the right to legally persecute people without being held to account.

tstorm823 said:
Freedom of speech is beloved by racists.
Not really though.

The freedom to say racist things is loved by racists, but that's a little different from what most of us would call freedom of speech. If you want to see the difference, try saying something racists don't like.

tstorm823 said:
Goldwater is described here as Neanderthalic on race, campaigning on the voting rights act and all that BS.
You cut the quote in half.

"The crucial thing in 1980 is, number one, that the two dominant issues of Southern politics which had been race and party?meaning you had to be a Democrat to win, and they had pretty well sewn it up. And the main issues became the economy and national defense.

Now that's interesting in that those are the issues basically that Goldwater,
in other words the South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth, because we weren't mainstream on not only on the race thing but on the economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered ultra-conservative and everything.

What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act, TBA, and all that bullshit. But when you look at the economics and national defense, what had happened is that the South went from being behind the times to being the mainstream."

He's not saying Goldwater is a bad Neanderthal for opposing the voting rights act. He's saying that the perception of the south among the rest of the country during Goldwater's campaign was that it was reactionary and Neanderthalic, not simply because it was racist, but also because of "ultra-conservative" views on economics and security, and that's why Goldwater failed to do well outside of the south. The point he is making is that Reagan has brought what was previously a fringe "ultra-conservative" position, held by "Neanderthalic" southern people, into the mainstream. He is describing Goldwater's opposition to the voting rights act as a "boo boo" because it was, at the time it was a mistake that alienated him from voters outside of the south. But he's not actually talking about how Goldwater was a bad racist, but rather how Goldwater was ahead of his time on issues like economics and security.