Yeah, Bo, lay off. He’s doing an okay job of listening to his elders, who know better than he does.
(Some of us were even actually born before Reagan was president!)
Yes, sure. One man’s deception is another’s straighforward rendering of the relevant facts, though, so it’s a hard thing to nail down, and probably depends heavily on one’s pre-conceived ideas. I’m pre-disposed to think well of Reagan, for instance, and don’t consider welfare reform to axiomatically mean an assault on black people (living in a state with a lot of poor white people on government assistance will do that), or bad policy (though I’d replace the whole shebang with a negative income tax, if I were emperor).
Heck, welfare itself was often a racist code word. Still is.
I think you’re making the mistake of assuming that because you don’t think like a racist asshole, other people didn’t. (Which is another example of how young people get trapped by progress.)
There may be some of that, the past is another country, after all, and perhaps three quarters of the people who heard Reagan speak about welfare fraud and reform nodded their heads and thought “Ol’ Ronny’s telling me he’s gonna stick it to the black man, he’s got my vote for sure!”
But, there’s another trap, in thinking that just because some racist assholes respond to a message, the message is designed for those racist assholes in particular.
Which is what I referred to earlier in saying charges of code words are sometimes “used to supress discussion of legitimate issues by tarring them as racist”.
Anyone who believes the welfare state should be cut back is open to being accused of being racist or trying to appeal to racists. Ditto for anyone who wants to crack down on crime. Or any number of other issues.
There’s little you can do about it. It’s an effective tactic.
I agree.
It’s even possible that Ronnie didn’t know how racists would respond because he wasn’t one.
“Tarring?” Is that a racial reference? 
“Crack?” Why say “crack”? Why not just cocaine? Are you making a racial reference?
Seriuosly, you’re right, and it drives me insane too.
Well, yes, there is something you can do about it. You can be aware of the existence of the concept of code words, and even what they are. You can avoid using them and find more direct wording to make your legitimate point (assuming it *is *legitimate), and thereby avoid being misconstrued as using code for something illegitimate. All it takes, besides basic honesty and true non-racism, is awareness of the issue and the articulateness to avoid it. It isn’t really all that hard.
Is “there’s too much crime” a legitimate issue? Or is it a code for “there are too many blacks around here?”
Perhaps, but he’s not obligated to make sure that he unintentionally ever uses a word that someone else will take differently.
What’s required is some good faith. When someone says something that you think could be racist, you just ask. If they say “I didn’t mean it that way,” you simply say okay and continue. You don’t bash him. (I don’t mean you in particular). Don’t assume the worst.
I’m reminded of this ridiculous incident:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm
The irony is that the speaker could have no reference whatsoever to race in mind, but it’s the critic who thinks of blacks when he hears “crime.” Who’s the racist there?
I disagree.
What phrase should I use to express the belief that the federal constitution establishes a federal government of supreme authority in its bailiwick but of limited, enumerated powers, and retains state governments of dual sovereignty and plenary powers?
Unless you aver that the above belief is itself somehow inherently racist…?
It’s been the latter, and not in the distant past either - the 1968 campaign was about “law and order” regarding domestic policy, as you may remember. The former can be true too, but it takes some detail to explain - what crimes, where, what you think need to be done about it. Yes, the existence of code makes it more difficult to bring up a legitimate issue that has been used as code, but if you want to get a point across, that’s what it takes. The past does resonate in the present (and it isn’t always past), and you do need to be aware of the context when you speak.
New Federalism? That’s the phrase that was invented back in Reagan’s day to avoid “states rights.”
Academic would be the kindest that comes to mind. Meaningless would be another.
Its origin is in the deal that kept the slave states in the union. If you mean something else by it today, you do have to recognize that it comes from a racist heritage.
OK.
So you want to replace “vote for me and I’ll reduce crime” with “vote for me and I’ll use enhanced patrolling and updated police techniques etc. etc. to reduce burglaries on the West Side of town”.
And if you don’t, you’re using racist code words.
Your original claim was: “It isn’t really all that hard.” I don’t think you’ve supported that claim.
Yes, as a voter I want to know you have an actual plan based on an actual problem, not that you’re insultingly dogwhistling me for the sake of my vote.
Whether you mean them that way or not, yes, you are, and you do need to be aware of it.
You haven’t really *tried *all that hard yet, have you?
In New York around 1968 it was well accepted. Which doesn’t mean it was true.
Racist joke from about 1968:
Q: What do 9 out of 10 Cadillac owners say?
A: Those white people sure make fine cars.
I’m not sure I want to search for evidence of this at work - maybe tonight unless someone else has already found it.
Thank you.
These children don’t understand.
Or realize how racist people were back then, and how in the early '60s Southern politicians didn’t even pretend otherwise.
Small vs. big government seems to work well for conservatives, despite itself being a fiction.
But being an argument about code words, someone like you is not likely to be manifestly convinced.
I mean, we all know that racists exist. We can imagine that there may be times that racists would like to not be obvious.
This may just be one of the those situations where the location of the mess hall can’t be found in the regulations, yet people still get their three squares a day, counselor.