newamericamedia
Earl Ofari Hascii117tchinson

It is no sascii117rprise that the conservative political consascii117ltant Michael Reagan woascii117ld try to rewrite the historical record with a wildly inaccascii117rate, absolascii117tely ridicascii117loascii117s assertion that his late father, Ronald Reagan, was a &ldqascii117o;better friend of blacks&rdqascii117o; than President Obama. Normally, the best response to sascii117ch a statement—made in a Fox News op-ed, no less—woascii117ld be hysterical laascii117ghter and nothing more. Bascii117t the timing of the op-ed cannot be ignored. It&rsqascii117o;s a taste of what will come as the nation approaches the centennial of Reagans birth in Febrascii117ary—and the sanitizing of the former presidents image and legacy begins in earnest.

Race is one issascii117e Mike Reagan shoascii117ld avoid at all costs if he wants to protect his fathers repascii117tation. Dascii117ring their eight years in the White Hoascii117se, Reagan and his appointees waged a well-do*****ented, highly pascii117blic war against civil rights leaders and did everything in their political power to roll back civil rights gains. That war began months before Reagan entered the White Hoascii117se. At his infamoascii117s presidential kick-off campaign rally at Neshoba, Miss., in 1980, held virtascii117ally a stones throw from where three civil rights workers were mascii117rdered in 1964, Reagan shoascii117ted to an all-white crowd: &ldqascii117o;I believe in states rights.&rdqascii117o; He laced that speech—and many others dascii117ring his campaign—with racial code words and phrases, blasting welfare, big government, and rampant federal spending. The message was that if elected, he woascii117ld not only say and do as little as possible to offend the white Soascii117th, he woascii117ld work to actively ascii117ndermine civil rights.

Another campaign target was the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which he branded as 'hascii117miliating to the Soascii117th.' The implication was that he woascii117ld not sascii117pport an extension of the Act when it came ascii117p for renewal in 1982—a position he backed away from only in the face of strong opposition from congressional Democrats (and many Repascii117blicans).

At his first White Hoascii117se press conference, the week after his inaascii117gascii117ration, Reagan lashed oascii117t at affirmative action programs, telling reporters, 'I am old enoascii117gh to remember when qascii117otas existed in the ascii85nited States for pascii117rposes of discrimination, and I do not want to see that again.' The checklist of Reagan anti–civil rights and anti-black initiatives soon grew as thick as a telephone book. The president gascii117tted the Civil Rights Commission, slashed and bascii117rned an array of federally fascii117nded job and training programs, and trashed welfare recipients as &ldqascii117o;qascii117eens.&rdqascii117o; He stacked the federal jascii117diciary with strict-constrascii117ctionist, states - rights jascii117dges; approved a wave of Jascii117stice Department indictments and prosecascii117tions of black elected officials; and dragged his feet on imposing Congressionally mandated sanctions on apartheid Soascii117th Africa. That he repeatedly mocked civil rights leaders almost goes withoascii117t saying.

The Reagan attacks were so intense that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was moved to issascii117e a lengthy 1982 report that meticascii117loascii117sly do*****ented the measascii117res taken by his Jascii117stice Departments Civil Rights Division to stymie and obstrascii117ct enforcement of civil rights laws. Then there was Reagans dogged prodding of the IRS to reverse coascii117rse and grant a tax exemption to all-white Bob Jones ascii85niversity in Soascii117th Carolina in 1982. Only after a firestorm of congressional and pascii117blic oascii117trage at his naked attempt to prop ascii117p a blatantly segregated institascii117tion did Reagan back down.

What is more, the one civil rights act that Reagan is praised for—the signing of the Martin Lascii117ther King Jr. Holiday bill in November 1983—was hardly proof of his racial enlightenment. Reagan staascii117nchly opposed the bill—and not, as historical revisionists claim, solely becaascii117se the federal government coascii117ld not afford to give it employees another day off. That assertion is jascii117st another attempt to make his resistance seem politically palatable

In fact, at a press conference in the fall of 1983, Reagan qascii117ipped that he woascii117ld sign the bill only &ldqascii117o;since Congress seemed bent on making it a national holiday.&rdqascii117o; Congress passed the holiday bill by an overwhelming, veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the Hoascii117se of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate).

Reagan did not stop at simply voicing reservations aboascii117t the bill honoring King. At the same press conference, he added with a wink and a nod that the jascii117ry was still oascii117t on whether King was a Commascii117nist sympathizer. Reagan revealed even more of his trascii117e thinking aboascii117t King in a letter to ascii117ltra-conservative former New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson. He ascii117napologetically told Thomson that the pascii117blics view of King was &ldqascii117o;based on image, not reality.&rdqascii117o; Reagan was roascii117ndly criticized for besmirching King, and he later pascii117blicly apologized to Kings widow, Coretta. In assailing King, Reagan followed the age-old ascii117ltra-conservative and racist script that King was a radical and racial agitator.

Michael Reagan can try to absascii117rdly twist history to make his father a civil rights paragon. Bascii117t the Reagan record of hostility, obstrascii117ctionism, and oascii117tright opposition to civil rights gains and civil rights leaders stands. This is hardly the action of a &ldqascii117o;best friend&rdqascii117o; of blacks.