Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (67557)	10/16/2008 7:02:22 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Well, that sounds innocent. And I'd certainly dismiss talk of conspiracy, if only as a straw man, because I agree the talk there doesn't sound as though it was a calculated plan. However, what I'd add is that maybe in the specific context of education, such talk of "states' rights" is less innocent than Brooks makes out, and more calculated than callous. Because it seems to me a key place to drop in such a throwaway line. I can barely name more SC cases than Palin, although I figure I have better excuse <g>, but one of the few I can recall is "Brown vs Board of Education". Which was precisely about state rights, specifically to run their education systems in segregated fashion. en.wikipedia.org And Reagan, while no genius of intellect, was an extremely skilled communicator and very aware of his message and its subtext. And surely as aware of US history as I am, especially in this context. So saying that states should have more authority to run their education systems without federal interference would seem to me to be a direct and less-than-subtle inference that Reagan was indeed sending such a coded message of understanding to the whites... Now I certainly don't believe that Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with a states’ rights speech in Philadelphia to send a signal to white racists that he was on their side or indeed that it was proof that the Republican majority was built on racism.. And I don't believe that Reagan was a racist, certainly not by the standards of the day. But on the evidence Brooks puts forward, I'd say it is reasonable to conclude that, since they were there, Reagan (certainly his speechwriters!) did want to send the message that he wasn't against them and wasn't going to press such issues.