- Apr 24, 2020
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.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.
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.
"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.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.
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.